ft
^-
gasi^?»^ . in' iC-iir-v ^ijuiltiifcti
6CC
c .
DEFENCE
O F T H E
CHURCH-GOFERNMENT
FAITH, IVORS El IP &
SPIRIT
OF JHE
In ANSWER to a late Book Intituled,
An APOLOGY for Mr THOMAS
RHIND. Or an Account of the Man-
ner how and the Reafons iox which he
Separated from the Presbyterhn Party,!
and embraced the Communion of the
CHVKCH
By JOHN ANDERSON M. A. Minifterof the Gofpel
in DVMBJRTON.
I John II. 15. Thi'j went out from us, but they we, e not of us :
GLASGOW, "
Printed by HVGH BROWN, M. DCC. XIV.
T O
The Right Honourable
ARCHIBALD,
EARL of ILAY,
LORD-JUSTICE-GENERAL,
of the Kingdom of Scotland,
Gne of the Extraordinary Lords
i SESSION,
A N D
Governour of Dumbarton-Q^^lc.
My Lord,
Have^ upon moe Accounts than
one Prefum'd to bhelter this
Book under Tour Patronage,
THE
DEDICATION.
THE Great Familv, whence You are
Sprung; and whereof You are ib Bright an Or-
nament, has always, fince the firft Dawn of the
Keformation, Patroniz d the Caufe therein De-
fended, They have Manag'd it by their Wif"
doniy Proteded it with Their Smord^ Adorn'd
it by Their Lives^ and too often Sealed it with
Their Blood. Yet even this was a Fate rather
to be Envied than Lamented. For^ to fall a
Sacrifice at once for Their GOD and i heir
Country, To be tranfinitteJ to Pollerity un-
der the united Charaders of MAKlTli and
PATRIOT ; This, MT LORD, was,
next to the Enjoyment of Heaven the higheft
Glory Great and Virtuous Souls cou'd attain to.
I need not tell Tour Lordfhip that the fame
Caufc is (till in Hazard. It is Lampoon'd in the
Tavern^ Deckim'd againft from the Fulpt^ Scrib-
bfd at from the Prep^ and its Ruin Projedted
by the Dealers in the Politich^. Yet all the Na-
tion is Perfuaded, that it is no lels the Inclina-
tion*
DE Die AT ION.
ticn, than 'tis vifibly the Interefl: of the Family
of ARGYLE heartily to efpoufe it; And
all the Owners of that Intereft, that is, the Wifer
and Better and far Greater Part of the Nation,
have neccflarly fuch an Opinion of the Perfbnal
fufficiency of the Principal Members of that
Houfe, as to found the greateft Expeaations
thereon. I
YOUR llluftrioas Brother The DUKE,has
raised Himfelf to an Unrivai'd Glory, and DiC
tinguini'd Himfelf as the H EKO of the Age.
YOU, My Lord J not contented to ex-
'cell in thole Exercifes^which are too often the on-
ly Accomplilliment of Perfons diftinguifli'd by
^Tiidr Birth, nor fatisfied to have Adorn d Your
Mind with that which is calFd the Polite Part of
Learning; and, by a True Tafteof the Belles
Lettres, and uncommon Advances in the Ma^
thematich^ and all the moft valuable Parts of
Philofbphy, to make Your Gonverlation both
Shining and Inftrudive. Not fatislied^ 1 fay,
% % with
DEDICATION.
with all this, You h;jve befides, that you might
be a Publick Good to your Country, ftock'd
Your Soul with fo Exafl: and Extenfive a Know-
ledge of the Lams^ that you arc Diftinguifli'd
on the Bench by your Jbi/ity no lefs than by
Your Quality: And the whole Nation finds it
felf Happy in Hex M^ejlys Wife Choice of
Tmr Lordjhip to bear io great a Part in thole
Courts on the Sentences of which their L/^'^x and
Fortunes dcpena^
THO' then. My Lord, the WeaknefiTes of
the Book are Mine^ only, and fo can no Way
affed Tour Lordjhify yet the Subject ot ity and
the Caufe it appears for, necelTarly intitle it ta
the Patronage of a Perfbn of your Cbarader;.
Yoti, My Lord^ know than the Presbyterian E-
ftablifliment in .S>(?//W can never be overt hrownj.
without breaking through whatever has been
hitherto held Sacred among Men. And Tour^
Lordjhif knows^ there is no Caufe why it ftiou'd
be attemptcdi^
DEDICATION.
THO' the Uigb-Chmch Faaion with whom
ModeUy and Modemion are reckon'd bcindal,
^s taught her Projdyts to Charge the P^.'^y-
trlw. with ^SPmiT Dimemcally Offofite
X./lG,rp./v Yet. You, My L.r« troov
Your oun PerYonal Acquaintance with em.
know how FaHe and Calumnious that Chatge
r As 'tis Evident, to :|hc Oble. vation of ali
the World that They a/e the nvoft ienous Chru
ftiLs' So'TourUrdpi^ is abundantly cor^
vinced tSt They are th/moft FaitWull bub;eas
Her me^ has on this bide tht Border. .
THEY don't indeed allow of ^WOR-
?H7P Frins'd with Ceremonies of Human In.
vent on and Impofitio". But, I'm perkuded, a
FeS of n./L.#f . Refleaion mu^l nee .
bcfenfiblc that a Mimfter of G O L) ne^.er
fter never enjoind Him. 1 is i tuc ^^^^ /^
DEDICATION.
teriam don't reftrid themfelves to Form^ in Pray,
ing to Almighty GOD-* But, 1 fuppo/e, Tour
LorJJhip does not think a Begger ever the kCs
Sincere, tho' he don't always ask his Alms in the
^ fame ftudied Cant.
'T I S Confefs'd likewife^ there are feveral
ARTICLES OF FA0H taught by the Pre^
shyterians, which arc above the Comprehennon
of Our finite Minds : But Tour Lordjhip^ who^
every Day, in the Search of Nature, find fo
many Affearances perfedly Unaccountable from
the Laws of Mechamfm, without having Re^
courfe to the Firft Mover and great Author of
Nature, can't be furpriz'd to find Articles in Re^
ligion not otherwile to be Kefolv'd but by Be-
lieving That GO Us Judgments are Vnfearch able
and His Ways pft finding out. Nor will Tour
Lordjhip, 1 prefume, be ftraitned to Believe,
that the whole Chriftian Church, which has
Taught thofe Articles equally with the Presby-
tmans, is as likely to be in the Right, as an
Upftart
DEDICATION.
Upftart Scd of yeftcrday, whofc Confidence is
their moft Ufefull Quality.
IN a Word, My Lord, the Presbyterians
dilbwn a PKELACT among the Miniftersof
the Gofpel ; And, on this Score, High-Church
finds in Her Heart to Damn em by the Lump,
and Mercifully to corjfign 'em to Everlafting
Flames. But Tour Lordjhip has a jufter No-
tion of the Kind Author of our Being, than
to Believe that He will Ruine His Creatures
for not Submitting to a Government ^ which its
Freflieft and moft Learn'd Patrons own, is
not to be found in the ORACLES OF
TKVTH.
I have therefore adventur'd to Infcribe this
Piece to Todr Lordfhip.^ not doubting but, how
Weak (bever the Performance may be, that yet
an Efay to Defend fb very Good a Caufe,
wherein not only Truth, but Peace^ Charity
and Good Neighbourhood are fb much concern'd,
will not be quite Ungracefull to You.
%2^ THAT
D E D I C AT I a M
THAT Tour Lardjhif may be always
BIcflTed with the Richeft Favours cf Heaven^
is^ and.ftiall be the Daily Prayer of
MT LORD,
I
Four Ij^rdfhip'-s
mo ft Humble i and^
moU Qhedknt Servant
JOHN ANDERSON.
K I. )
THE
PREFACE.
v.s
B
ETNG Senfilrle that Boohs always occafioft an Exfevce of.
Money ^ md^ which is much more "jaluable, of Time ; /
think my J elf obliged tot\county why I have given the Puh»
lick ^ the Trouble of , this, ^ .
HOW foon the A? OLOGY appeared; that Party, which is de-^
pnguiPj^d by the Name 0/ H I G H-C H U R C H, Gloried both in the
AVithov and in the Servfce He had done. . They Spread His Book with-
great Induftry into the fever at Parts of the Nation, Recommended it 4S^
rfPerfed Piece />-/Vj IQnd^ an4 u length Boafiedit made Profelyts.
/ hate t& Grudge even an Adverfjry His clue Vraife. I frankly _
cwny Mr, Rhind '^ds done as well as the Subject was Capable of. lown^
His Book is J of its Bulk, the most Comprehe^fve in its Subject^ I
have feen. Some AiH^ors have attaqued Vs upon the Head of G 0--
VE R N M E N T, fome upon our DO C T R IN E, fome upon our
WORSHIP, and fome too ( tho* thefe not always exceffivl) Qualified, ei*
ther Morally or Ir.telktlually, for fuch an Undertaking ) up07i our SPI--
RIT and PRACTICE. But A/r. Rhind has widened the Com-,
fifs, and taken all Four within His Circle , hinting at every Things of
a General Nature, that has been wont to be objected to us-; and all this
in fo very Pointed a Stile, that, had His I'xobdiiion been equal ^ there,
had been an End of the mattery and the IV or Id had- heard its I aft of
Fresbytry jor ever', .
IT
11 The P R. E F A C E.
IT might then fofjibly have argued^ either too much Jndoleme, or an
lllCofifcier/te^ to have mgk^edfmh a Book^pHthout either Anftvering or
Confiffing to tt. Nor is tt quite ImfrobAbk that Srlence rpou^d have
hetghtmd the Vanity of a Party abundantly remarkable already for that
Quality. I cannof deny but thefe C^nfideratians fomewhat Influenced me
to mite,
BVT then. That which Determin'd me, was the Cenftderation of
the Defign of Mr, Rhind'i Book, and of the Efted it muft neceffarly
have,fo far as it Per/uades. And who knows how far it may dofo^
Mankind grows Daily more Corrupt and Mr. Rhind is very far from
being pngular in what Hs has advd ^ced, mo ft Part of Books we get from
High-Church being of the fame Strain, and Breathing the very fame
Spirit.
NOW what elfe Is the Defign of Mr, Rhind'^ Book, hut to over*
turn the moil Sacred and Important Truths ? And what elfe can the
Effeft of it be, fo far as it obtains Credit, but the VtmoU Contempt
of Serioufnefs and Piety ; which, GO D knows, is at too low an Ebb
already on both (ides ? What elfe is the Defign of it, but to Exaffer-
ate the one Half of the Nation into Rage and Fury again jl the other '^,
And, jhou'^d it gain Faith, how Dire muH the Copfequences ^^ ? Then
muB Love, Peace, and Charity be for ever Bamfb^d, a StateofV-
mverfd-HoiltUty inftantly commence, Perfecution, in all its moft term
rible Forms, take Place, till not only T^resbytry be aboliflpd, but the
wMe Generation c/ Presbyterians be Extirpated from off the Face of the
Earth, whtch, Ijupfofe will hardly ever be, fo long as there is a Bible
on it,
T H AT Unhappy FeUoiv DgPoq, fome Ten or Twelve Tears ago,
put all England m a Ferment by His SHORTEST WAY WITH
THE DISSENTERS. But what elfe is His Shortcfi: Way, but the
Immediate Vfe of the Dooirtne laid down in Mr, Rhind'j Book, and,
indeed generally in all the Controverpal Books j and oftimes in the Ser-
r/wns, of High-Church? For
IF
The PRE F ACE 111
IF the Presbyterian Vajlors are no Minirters; // their Sacra-
ments are nuU\ If all ^ who are of that Commurhion^ are out of the Or-
dinary Road to Heaven, and, can have no Rational Hope of Salvation ;
Does it not unavoidably follow that it is the Duty of Our Civil Govern-
ours to overturn their Settlement} Is it not plain that They are in a
Bate of Deadly Sin fo long as They leave it undone ? PVere it not an
ACT of Great Mercy, and Chrifiian Comfaffion to COM PELL us to
come in, thd* it were by the Rough Arguments of Heading, Hanging
Anafuch like, rather than fuffer m to go into Hell Fire Our f elves, and
lead others thither, with the Limbs intire ? // Presbyterians are not
only without the Church, but Enemies to it, what can the STATE
in Confcitnce do, but Declare them ih be denuded of all thnje Immunities
And Priviledges whtch the Law haa fecur'^d ''em //;, and which hither*
to They have enjoyed in Common with Their Neighbours, upon the Pre*
fumption of Their being Chriftians? If Presbyterian Parity is fe
ImonfiHent in its oan Nature with Monarchy, are not the Civil
Powers obliged for Their own Stcurity to crufh a Society of fo Dan-
gerous a Conftitution ? If the Presbyterian Spirit is Diametrically
Oppofite tothatof the Gofpel, what Eternal Ammo fit tes mufl there be'^twixi
True Qhvixchandfuclj a Party? h it poffibk but that, uponfuchaSup*
fofition, there nmft be Conflant and Mortal Feuds in every the fame City,
the fame Congregation, the Jame Family, and of times in the fame Bed},
For, what flootid an Epifcopal Husband, who wou^d not pa fs for Hen*
pecked ^, do with a Wife who is Incorrigibly Presbyterian? Shall He
It til cherifh the Serpent in His Bolom till She Jlmg him to Death}
ShaH he hug the Charming Ter/ipter till ffje Teaz,e htm into the Devour*
ing Jaws of the Old Serpent by Her Bewitching Importunites f MuH
mt then all Things run into Confufion upon fuch Principles} "^Tis
True, Almighty Providence ma^ reflrain fuch Difmal Ejfetts, or Good
Nature may overcome bad Principles ; but fuch, Pm fure^ are the Na-
tive Confequencesof^em, and are Daily put tn Pi all tee in all the Po'
pifh Countries', too /urea Si^n (^be fides ihe Proof of former Expcrierjce)
that not Will, but Power only, is wanting to att the fame Tragical
"]■ -]- Scenes
• See the sApoh^y p. 20/. &c.
IV. The P R E F A C E.
Seems in Britain. An^ what lefs jhou'd he expe^ed from a Party^
which ju fifes all that Cdrnage the French Kjng has made oj His Pro-
teftant Subje^s f ?
THIS then heing the Natural ProduH of the Principles of Mr,
Rhind'i Booky I thought lowed this Service r/ot only to the Truth but
to My Country; And that I was obliged to bring my Bucket^ tho* a
fhallow one, to Quench that Flame which, if not fupprefs'^d in Time^ mufi
needs Corifume it to Afhes, and bring m to the fame miferable State
jvhichy Jolephus tells m, the Zealots brought Jerufalem into bfore its
DeftrufUon, ThiSj I hope^ will not onlyexcufe butjufiify my Writing,
\
BUT then the next Qjiefiim will be, Why fo largely? Was itfo
very hard a Matter to Anjwer Mr. Rhind, that no lejs than a Book 4-
hout Four Times the Bignefs of Wa cott^d fervefhe Turn? His SingU'
larities are but few , and might have been quickly difcuffed'^ nor had the
Reader been at any Great Lofs, tho' they had been quite neglected.
What elfe He has advanced has been brought into the Field a Hundred
Times before, and it might have been Sufficient for Anjwer to have re-
commended the Reader to former Writers on the fame Suhje6is. Be-
(ide's, He has very oft-en through His Book, and upon f^? Spirit of the
Presbyterians always, contented Himf If with meer jiffertion : And,
in fuch Cafes, "'tis fill as Honourable to deny without a Reafon, as it
was to ajfert without a Proof,
ALL this I acknowledge is very True ; and fuch a Condu5f, ^tis
plain, had brought my Book within a very Moderate Cornpafs : But
then too, fuch a Conduct had funk its Vfefullnefs proportionally with
its Bulk : For I did Intend by it, and fhall be forry if the Reader find
h'tmfelf difappointed,. fomewhat more than a Simple Confutation of the
Apology : / defigrPd it fljou'd be of Vniverfal Vfe in this Contro-
lierfyy and therefore have not barely Deny'd, which in very many
Cafes
t Sec aUerwaid p. ^5
The PREFACE.
Cafes had been enough for our Apologifl:, and rvou'^d have very much
Jhortned the Work', hut I have Difproveci too: Nor have I put off
the Reader wtth Anfwering Mr, Rhind, hut have faid as much as I
thought Suffictent to Satispe the Argument it f elf by whoever it were
PLAINLT I defign'^d. In the Firft Place, to fay asmuchasrvM
medfull to Vindicate the Presbyterians from thofe Imputation^ in Fa^
which fU fo many Hundreds of the Epifcopal Sermons^ Books and"
Pamphlets, and are fo much the Suhje^i of their Converjatton, If in
doihg this I have mentioned any Pacfs on their Side, the hearing where-
of may he Grateing to them, they h(pe themfelves to blame : For every^
one mufi own^ tt was a very proper Way in Me^ for Di( proving the\
Reafons of Mr, Rhind'i Condutl^ to make it appear, that the 4/ae Me^
had efpoujed lay evtry Way as open to Exceptions as ifhaf He hafi Pe^,
Jtej^iedi.. Here then the Old Apology takes Place
.\
- -Sciat
Refponfumi tion Didiim elTe, "'quia JaBfit. prius. \
-\ ^-^ k ^..^ ■■ > . ' r:-:-. \
But then^whichwill Jujficiently diUingmfh fny Munaqment^ the Reader^
may Promife Htmfelf to find My Af^erjions verified, m all Cafes need-
fully by the woft Authentick and Unexceptionable Documents^ \a Piece,
of Drudgery which Mr, Rhind has^ and the Wv iters of His Pany ge-,
nerally do, excufe themfelves from, 2dly, I. def^n'^d'io fay as much a$~
I thought medfull for Convincing any A^an'*s LOfjfcience that the Pr£-
shyitv\2in Communion is not orAy Safe but the Beft, both as to- Go'^
vernment^ Faith and Woyfiip, And as the Reader wtll fir/d all the
Arguments- for Prelacy particularly Dtfcourfedyfoy which I doubt not
will be furprizir/g enough, He will fr/d my Reafonings agair^ft Vw For-_
tified by the Ju/^gment even of the moft (minunt Divmts of ihe Church
of England who habitually reject each others Arguments for Prelacy,,
andaye fo very unhappily (huated, that they carPtpiffi'oly Defend againfl
Popery but upon PrCbbyterian Principles, nor Impugn trtsbytry but:
upon Popilli ones,. Iho^e then the Reader will eaftly Pardon me. that
VI. The PREFACE.
/ have run eut into fuch a Lwgth when my Suhje^ and Defgn was
Jo Urge,
AS for th At which is called STILE, I have taken jasi as much
care about it as was needfull to make my Self underliooa. Any further
Nicenefs I judged Superfluous upon a Subject of this Nature, which I
fufpe^ is not very capable of Drefs, unlefs one intend a Harangue in'-
Jlead of a Diffute,
Ornare Res ipfa ncgat, contenta Poceri.
hJy great efl care, next to that of {he Matter^ was that I ffjou^d not
be Intricate or Perjflexed, as Comroverfies ate apt to he : ^And this
I hope I ha^ve obtained; For I h^ve r^ever made any Blind Rtferames
to Mr, Rhiiid'/ Book^ but have always given His Senfe^ and almoB
always in His oun Words ^ which is another confidtrable caufe that my^
Book is fo large.
TO both which I may add a ^hird viz. That I have infertedjome
few Digrefftoniy tho"* not I hope fom the Purpofe, yet from the Thread
of Mr, Rhind'i Book, That upon the late Vindication of the Fun-
damental Charter of Presbytry, which the Reader will find p. 32, /V
but fhort : And^ thd* one wou'*d think that Scots Men ought to be very
little concerned with the Enghfh Liturgy^ yet that being the Difpute of
the Day, I under ft and that the Author of the Countiy- Man's Let-
ter to the Curate, again ft which that Vindication is directed, intends,
if GO D [pare Him, a Second Edition, in one Volume on a fine Pa-
per and Type, both of the Dialogues concerning the Englifh Liturgy,
and of rW Letter &c\ wherein the Subject of /^e Liturgy is to be more
largely Difcourfed, and whatever has been advanced againft the Dialogues
by Mr, Barclay or others, and againU the Letter by the Vindicator,
either in Reajon or Hiftory, is to be confider'*d. The largeft Digreffion
I have made, which the Reader will find p, 317. is that on the Earl of
Cromerty'i late Book, Be fides that it was necefary in Point of Self
Defence, Iperjaade my Self His Lord/hip will be pie of e^ with it^ becaufe
M
The PREFACE. Vil.
,« . I., »..>..■»■».-...■»■. ■ ■ . .■■I..II »ii I II III I
it way help to Exacf^efs in a Piece of Hijlory^ rvhich His LordJJjip
has fo much contributed to the Inlightmng of,
AS to the Conduci of the whole Book^ I am fcnfible how much I
fhall wdnt the Reader'^s hululgence. ]^»t this Piece of J/a'iice I crave
That He wotPd not Cenfure any one Part of it, till He h,tve read
through the whole ; hccmfe what He might perhaps expert to find in
one Place^ I may have poljiblj thought fie to rejerve to J not her j where
I fancied it might Hand to greater Ptnpofe or with a better Grace.
Further, I mufi aavertife the Reader, that, havin{r ufed the Word
WHIG in fome few Places, I meant it m fhe Original • Scmch
Senfe, ^ fgnifying a Presbyteriafl, except when by the Context it
appears, thzt it is to be underfiood in that more Qomprehenfive No*
tion Vfe has now affixed to it,
I hope the Readtr will he Mercifull as to the Errors in Print*
ing. Such as are of any Moment are but few, and both thefe and
the le[i)\r Efcapes in Spelling, Pointing, or Dividing of Syllables I
expe^ will be Excufed upon the Account of My. Diflance and ne-
cefary Abfence from the Pre/s.
AFT E R all I have faid />. 15. there are fome tvou'*d fiill per^
fuade me that not Mr, Rhind, but another Perfon of a much higher
Chara8er is the true Author of the APOLOGY. But ^tis the
fame Thing to me whether it be Jo or otherwi/e : For I never thought
that External Character cou'd either heighten or diminiflj the Intrinfck
Value of a Book : Nor did I intend a Difpute again ft any Man^s
Perfon, but^ the' 1 ordinarly name Mr, Rhind only, yet I generally
mean His Party : And therefore, thd* He complains that the Presby-
terians have exhaulted all their Common Places of Slander a-
gainft Him, yet for my own Part, I have confider'*d Him meerly as
the Writer of the A P O L O G Y, without fo much as touching upon
His Perfonal Q^ialities or CircuwHances in any Private Concern. I
knew the Publick cou^d have been very little Edifyed with Perfonal
-W 2 Obje^ionSy
VUI. The P K E F A C E.
Qh]e5iio7fs ; and I did not think I wanted fuch AdmimcleSy the At*
gument it [elf having pven mt [ujiltmn Mvant/^^,
P L AINLT, 1 ferfuade my [elf that every one whd has read
Mr>'K\{\X\^^s Book will, ufon the Reading of mine^ allow that I have
kept more Temper than perhaps was due to fuch a Piece, for^ when
a Set of People, about %vhom there is notlmig Extraordinarly Chri*
Hian appearing, xvili needs put fuch a 'Jefl upon Mankind, astoMo'
nofoliz^e the Name of CHURCH^ to them/elveSj and Belch out
their Fire and Fenom^ without Fear or Wit, again B the whole Re-
formed Interefi, and jet at the fame Time will have us to helteve V;;?
froteftants.; In fuch a Cafe I rktfl meds own^ that
DiiBcile efi: Satyram non Scrtbere,.—
However^ I have refirain'd my felf as much as th Matter cati^d'
admit of, or either Juftice or Charity required.-
I reckon upon- it that my Book wilt be anfwered ; and "^tis hardly
pc^ible to fore fee what kind of Jrgume?Hs may beufed againjl me ;
But there is one which I deprecate viz. that Powerfull one — Damn
me. / dorPt fear that any of their Laity will attack me wiih it, I
have a better Opinion of their Piety and Manners-, hut I dare mt
promife fo'muchon their CkfgfsHead: F(?r, what has been, fmay
be. However, by Way of Prev&ntion, I own it to be an unan/werab/e
Kjnd of Argarmnt ; And therefor^ they may fave themfelves tj/e
Trouble of it ^ fo much the rathe/ that they cannot he very great Lo-
JerSj t ho* J hey omit it,
B V T I am fenfible that by the Length of this Preface I add
tvthe TranfgreJJion of the Book. After all I can fay, I know it
??i?(^^ as all other Books have ever done^ take its Fate according to
tfji'
f i J See V^r C.tl-der'i Mjft«ila3)' Numbers J^wm. IV.
The PREFACE. JX.
the ImlirJAtion or Capacity of its Dijferent Readers, A^d, therefore^
as it is, I fetid tt forth into the World ivilh its Father'' s Bleffifjg,
heartily praying that the GOD of Truth and Peace may Prof per
Iti to the Preferving among U4 Two fuch valuable Enjoyments,
M^rch 17th,
17 1 4.
ERRATA.
PAgc 9. Line 13. Read ihat fiat. lb. L. ly. -r. I huve heard. P. 13. L. i. r. be /b very. lb. L.
13. r. ciudely. lb. L. 19- are cmc v. *je o«, and fo in fome other Places. P. 33. L. 2i> r. Re-
triiHiacioiis. P. 4.2. L. 20. r. Lofer.- P. +3. L. zz P/eshytriei r. Presbyters. P. 44.. L. 8. tyvo r. too. P.
4.;-. L. 14. Prinvipd. 1: Principle. P. 48. L. 6. from the Form the Rules, r. trom the Rules. lb. L. 17.
if examined, r. are examined. Pi 64.. L. aa. Fiiejl r. P/ieftf. P. 70. L. 20. r. revile. P. 71. L- a?- r.
Necks. P. 72. L. IT. r. Eutiopiiis. P. y6. L. 22. his CoiicelTion r.this Conceffion. P. 81. L. 31. A£ts
J ■.. r. Afts. ij». P. 8(5. L. 14. he.ir r. here. P. 112. the Word Seven in the End of the ad Line is to
be blotted out. P. 117. L. 28. Mdrtiul. v. Mariul. P. iiS. L. 1. He had. dele He. P. 110. L. 10. Df-
^yces, r. Degree. F. 143. L. lo. referrs His Readers to. dele. to. V. 149. L. S. His Words, r. His
"VVorcs aye. P. 175. L. 10. on Day. r. one Day. P. 175. L. 13, fiirnifliing out of dele. ©/ lb. L. 27.
lear 1642. r i)-42.'P J88 L 16 KedicuU i. Ridictla. P. 287. L. 8 i: Nothing dele the Poi u P.
315 L. laft. Worle r Worft ■
CORRIGENDA IM MARGINE
P|V<e 71. a Capite. Df/c, a. P. 8j. /f^'f SeceQum. P. 97. Le^e Vacabaa:. lb. LegiOativatn. P. 58.
; le^e, tribuendawi. P. i»o. !e^cqaoque. P. 102. Lf^f, Terns. P. 133. Lc^f, Elegit. P. 148. Lc^*
zindidi'Xe. P. 1^4,. L^f, forte. P. 17J. tc^e, peperit. P. 182. hge, ObfoicyeXi:. P. io». Ii-^f, i>«a
i-.-.iidiiin-.
'CO
Mr. Rhind^s Apology difproved
1 H E I
INTRODWCTION^
H E general Method of Mr. RhMs Book is, I ac-
knowledge, abundantly Diftinft. Therein, after the
Hiftory of the MANNER How, He gives an ac-
t" B count of the REASONS for Which He feparated from
-^^^^ the Presbyterian Party ; to wit, becaufe, upon Eriquiry
He found Their GOVERNMENT to be Schifmatical, Their J?.
tides of FJ/r// fundamentally FaU'e and Pernicious, Their W'^OK-
SHIP fcandaloufly Corrupt and highly Impsrfeft, and their 5P7R/r
diannetTically Gppofite to that of the Gofpel. A heavy enough
Charge truly ; and if but one half of it hold True, every good Chri-
ftian muft needs at once Juftify his 5g/>4r<2;/i?/?, and Congratulate his
Efcape.
But it is the Defign of the following Sheets to Examine his Perfor-
mance ; and if in the IfTue it fhall be found, that there is neither
Jruthiw his Afertiom, Strength in his Arguments^ Proof for his At"
le^gances y nov Modejiy in his Characters; Then, I hope, it will fol-
low, that, how much Reafon foeveriome other Party may have to
be fond of their new Profely t, yet the Pr^i^j^^m^i have nofuchCaufe
to be fwallowed up of overmuch Sorrow for their Lofs , but that
ahey may hope the Days of their Mourning may wear over, and
they may be comforted.
■ 4 CHAP.
e H A p. r^
Contming pelminary Remar^r]
T Hough his Title J Preface ^ad A^arrative h^iVe no great IriSui-:
ence on the main Subje^l; yet, that I may proceed in or-,
der ; for clearing the Ground, I fhall beg leave to take them un- .
der Review in fome few Remarks: the rather, becaufe the doing
fo will, I hope, fufficiently diftinguifh the Spirit oLxhQ Author^ ^
perhaps too, help to enlighten his Book.
S E (p T. I;
QontmingKemitrJ^s on theTitkofMr. Rhiiid^i'
f.V X ^ R.Rhwd has given his Book the Title o^zn Apology. Butj ,
IVl I apprehend, whenthe Book itfelf is lookt into, it will ap-
pear to be very ill Chofen. The Apoftle Veter enjoins (.2) Chri-
ftians to be always ready to make an Apology ( fo it is from the Origi-
m^l ) to every, cm thMi asks a Reafon of the.Hopejhat is in them.- Bufj ,
though that Apoftle had as much Edge on His Temper, and pof- -
fihly was as forward in his Zeal as Mr. RhrJ; though the Caufe •
of Chrijlianity was at leafl: of as great Importance as \\\2iio{ Prelacy,
and the Enemies the Church had ?/?^/? to da with litle better na-
tured than the F/^fj^^'m^/sjj; yet. He would not allow them, in -
putting in an ^POLOGT even for Chriftianity it felf, though againft
^ews and Pagans^ to ufe Rudenefsor Bitierriefs, far lefs Calumny and •
Slander; but cKpreOy. Charges Them to do it with MEEK./\-ESS
and FEAR, Mr. Rhini, was not Ignorant of this Precept, He iias -
fronted his Book with it; but, fince ever -^/'(p/iy^/^i were in iafhion^
I very much doubt if ever any was writ 1 with fo unchriftii^n a
S^irit^foabfoiutly void of both thefq Requifites. . I do not believe :
ihe\;
Sea. I: Mr. Rhiad's Title Vage ^
the Reader wou'd think himfelf much gratified by entertaining
Him with aColledion of all the PalTages in the Apology that migh'*
contribute to prove this Chara£ter I have given of it : Yet 'tis ne-
^ ceffary I produce 0/?^, left any fhould fiifped I charge Him fafly:
And oney I'm perfwaded, vi^ill be fully fufficient for that Purpofe.
I fhall therefore, without adding, altering or diminifhing, tranfcribc
one Paragraph from Him, wherein He has drawn the Charafter
qU\iq Presbyteriam, diftinguifli'd too into its Periods for the Read-
ers more diftind conception. It is thus
I ' The/ ( the Presbyterians) are naturally Rigid and •Severe, and
* therefore conclude, that God is fuch a one as themfelves. 2. They
* damn ail who differ from them, and therefore think that God
* doesthefame. 3. And becaufeThey love themfelves, They are plea-
* fed to pe{fwade ThemJelves mat They are his fpeciai Favorites,
* 4. In a Word, They are Refpeders of Perfons, and there-
^ fore think to Patronize Their Partiality with His Authority.
* 5. Hence They conclude that They owe them no Civilities whom
* God negle£ls, nor kind Offices whom he hates. 6. Henegleds
* and hates all who are not capable of his Grace, which none arc
* (fay they; who are not of their Way. 7. This wicked perfvva-
'* fion fanJ^ifies not only the ill Manners,but which is worfe, theill
' Nature of the Party , towards ail who differ from them. It contradi£ls
* the Ends of Society and Government, and is only calculated to
* advance the private Intereft of a Partial and Defigning Set of
[ Men ! Thus He p. 208.
Now, if in all this Paragraph there is the leaf!: allay of Meekm/s,
He would very much oblige us, if He would tell us what Bitttr*
Tiefs and Mdkt is.
But though His Zeal fwallowed up his MEEKJ<JESS, yet, was
there no place for ¥EAK (the other Requifite ; I mean a Rever-
ence and Regard to Truth ? Mighi he not have thought it Necef-
fary to offer atleaft at fome Inftancesfor fupporting the faid Char-
after? Did he fancy it would be believed on his bare Word ?
He muft be abundantly fanguin if he did. However, PreshyterUns
don't think tTiemfelves much in hazard from Writers that facrifice
their Veracity tothePleafure of breathing their Spleen. They areac-
cuftom'd to have themoft black Chara6ters drawn of them by the
p.ampant high Church Authors ; But they don't feel themf^^lves
A 2 much
^', Remar\f m Oxlf. \a
much hurt thereby, bccaufe they are as fiotorloufly /^^^ as they
are BUclc. 'Tis difficult to name that ill Thing which a Heylift,
SL Hicks, a Lefsljiy^i Sacheverel^ C alder or iome other very Reverend
Divine of the like Probity has not write of Them or imputed to
Them.' Who were the Inftruments that procured thQ Spam/h At-
madoto invade England in t 588? The Whigs (^). Who burnt
London in 1666 ? The Whigs (c). Who piloted in and aflilted th^
Dutch to burn the Err^li/h FkQt at Chatham'^ TheWhigsf^;. Nay
who cmcified Jefus Chrift ? Who but the Whigs, the very Chil-
dren are taught to lisp out that (0- Calves He adfe ops are with thefc
Authors true Hiftory, Why? Becaule one of themfelves wrote it,
and the reft citeit(/), and who dares doubt it after that?
But fuppofe it was below an Author of Mr. Rhindh Soaring
Cemus to adduce Proof iot his AfTertions, or to regard fo fmall a
Circumftance as T//y/^ in his ChuraOers-^ yet might he not havd
ufed fo much common PrudeDGe,as not to draw the Pr^^^j^^m^?/
in the Habit of HighXhurch Ta^^/^j, and to Twit them with thaj
whereof Himfelf and Fellows are notorioufly Guilty beyond what
was ever heard of among any Party of Chriftians except tha
Church of Rome ? His forecited CharaQer turns mainly upon un*
charitdblemfs. The Presbyterians, {dixih. he, damn all that di^er from
them^and therefore think that God does the fame. But is not this ever?
the di/iingu/Jbing Principle of a High -flyer? Has not Mr. Dodtvell^
whom Mr. Rhind fo much admires, and upon whofe Principles
Sie profeffes to have formed his. own p. 24, 25. exprefly taughr;
that there is no communicating with the FATHER or the SO}^
hut by Communion jvith the Btjhop, Mi is, faith he^ one of (^g)
* the mcft. dreadful aggravations of the Condition of the
* Damn'djthat they arebanifhed from the Prefence of the Lord and
* from the Glory of his Power, The fame is their Condition alfo
* who are difunited from Chrift, by being difunited from his vU
*■ fible ReprefentativeY the Bifhop j. Nay, has he not fliut up
ev^n the fmall Cranny of the uncovenanted MtxdQS. of God,
yi\\Kh. might Jiave let in.fome faint Ray of Hope, againft all
the
(h) Cafiantira Numb. II. p. 57. {c) New AfTociation- pnrt-II. f. 5^. Cd) Tbid. (e)- Ctidir on the
«.gnof cte Cioii, Numb. VIII.- p. l^^if) Cafsa^dr<ii;iv3i\,. I. p. 46.rf ]pne PjieilUood»Chap. 2^111..
Sea. i: Mr. Khmd's Title Page] $
the World ' hut Epifcopaliam alone, by declaring in that fame Place,
'That it is extreamly uncertain, and at Xtz^ hfinitly hazardous
* C and what can be beyond Infinite? ) that ever they floalllhare
' in them. Do not Scores of their other Authors talk at th,e fame
Rate? But why do I fpeak of others ? Is not this the very De-
fign of Mr. Rhmd'^s Book ? Was not that the Reafon why he Je^
pArated ixom l\\Q Presbyterians, becaufe They are noi in the Ordinary
Road to Heaven p. 31? Nay I hope to make it good to every Man's
Conviftioa ere 1 have done, that he has damned the whole Chri-
ftian Churches on Earth, the Church of E;?g/-2/?rf' her felf too among
the Reft excepting fome Htgh-flyers, who can no more be faid to
be of the Church, than an overgrown Wen or fome monltrous
Tumour on the Body can be called a Part of it. Think now
how well calculate Mr. Rto^'s Ppok is to bear the Title of an
Apology ; how wifely and juftly his Meek and Catholick Spirit
charges xSxtl^reshyterians'^'wSx Kigour^Vi^V'KiharuahleiQejs, I wou*d
advife him, if ever his Book come to a Second Edition, to alter the
Title a iitle,and inftead of an APOLOGY to call it a LYBELL."
IL In his Title he promifes to give m Account of the Reafons
/or which he ftpaf cited from the Presbyterian Party, AND EMBRA-
QB.\^ THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH. J cannot
but with he had been a litle more particular, and told us OF
WHAT CHURCH. 'Tfs true, the Church is but one; yet
there are- feveral Communions, There is the Roman, the Lutheran,
the Church of England Communion, with too many others, which
differ from each other in very confiderable Points; But though I
have read his Book with all the Application I was Capable of;
I fincerely declare I cannot find out that Church, whofe Communi*
^;^he can reafonably claim to.
Th^ Presbyterian Party is that which he hath abandon'd. He
hath, though indeed in very modeft Terms, difclaimed the Com-
munion of the Church of Rome p. 14 15. The Greek, Armenia
4», Ethiofick Churches &c lay too far out of his Road. The leffer
Fra£lions and Seds among Chriftians he gave not himfelt the
Trouble to enquire about, from a juft Fear left if he had. He had
ended His Days, ere He had formed His Qonfeffion of Faith p. 14.
What Church then can it be whofe Commuqioahe hasembraced ? •
6 * ^^ Remdr^s on Chap^ I.
He has given us three hints to find her out by, but nons of them"
fufficicnt to give Light in the Matter and determine the En^
quiry.
I. He tells us p. 28 Jt is the Commumon of the CdXhoXiok Churchy
But this CjTHOLICK, is a Hackney which every Party prefs in-
to their Service, every Church claims, and the Church of Rof^e,
which yet he difowns, appropriates to her Self. Andfowe are
juft as Wife as we were.
II. He tells us in the Beginning of his Preface, that it is the
Communion of the SVFFERING CHVRCH, by which he means
the trelatffis in Scotland. But, though he hath joined himfelf to
them, yet that he is not of them, nor within their Communion, I
'Ihall, ere I go further, make abiindantly Evident upon this fingle
VofiuUtum, that that CHURCH is the fame in her Vrwci^les tiOWi^
{^Q is Suffering, that She was while F/£?/^nyZ?/^^. .
She was while Flourifhing Eraliian in her Government^ Cahinip
;in her DoElrine^ her Worfhi^ without a Liturgy, her DijcifUne ex-
.ercifed by Lay Elders, All which is ditedly Contrary to the Pria-
.^ipIesofMr. Rhindh Book.
Firflj I fay, His Suffering Church was EraBian in her Cover f^
went, Befides the Trad of our Hiftory and many AQs ofParlia-
sncnr, ArchBifliop GladHones has given Emphatick Teftimony that
it v/as fo in the Time of King "James VI. In his Letter to that Prince
of the Date Augufl g i . 16 1 2. He has thefe remarkable Words. ' For,
•'^ beddesthat noEftate may fay, that they are your Ma je (ties Crea-
^ tores, as we may ; fo there is none whofe ftanding isfoflippery,
•* when your Majedy fiiall frown, as We. For at your Majefties
-* Nod we muli either ftand or fail. Thus alfo it was in the late
Times after the Reftauration of King Charles II, as appears by the
;AQ of Parliament Redintegrating theEftateofBifliops ; For there-
in ' the Difpofal of the External Government and Policy of the
^ Church was declared to be in hisMajefty and his Succefforsasan
^ inherent Right of the Crown, and that they might fettle, ena6l
^ and limit fuch Conftitutions, Ads and Orders concerning the
■^ Adminiftraiion of the External Government of the Church, and
^ the Perfnns employed in the fame, and concerning all Ecclefiaiti-
^ cal ]V^^€|ing5, and Matters to be propofed and determin'd there-
^ ia
Sea. 7. Mr. RKmd's Title Page'. 7
^ in, as they, in their Royal Wifdom, fhall think fit. Did Oic alter
this Principle upon the Revolution'^ No. In the Year 1692, no
fewer than 180 of the Epifcopal Clergy with Dr. Canaries on their
Head, in their own Name and in that of the whole Body of the
Epifcopal Clergy in the North, addreffed the General AfTembly to
be affumed into Minifterial Communion and a Share of the Church-
Government upon di Formula whereof the Firft Words are. / J, B.
' dofmcerely declire and promife, that I will fubmit to the Presby-
* terian Government of the Church as it isnoweftabliflied in this
* Kingdom — . This they could not, without expofing themfelves to
Damnation, have promifed to do, had they judged i^reshyteriariGO'
vernment to be SchifmAtkaC-^ . But their Doing fo was very well con-
fident with the Era(iim Principles. Now Mr. Rkinds Principles
are direQly oppofiteto tbefe: Forhe hath not only taught, ' That
* the Church is a Society independent upon the State, P. 29. but that
Pre-/^^ is the only Government of the Church by Divine Right, and
that exclufive of all others. This is the avowed Defign of almoft one
half of his Book.
Secondly, liisfufferifig Chxxvzh w^sC ahhijl in ^olnt oi Do5^ri/7e:
/&(?jc's ConfeHion of Faith was formed in the Year 1 560 ; exhibited
to and ratified by the Parliament that fame Year and oftimes after-
ward. It was owned as the only Confeffion of this Church, with-
out Rival without Controul either by FreUtifis oxVresbjteriaKs ^o^
z\:V[iQ?iftxtyTears. I need not tell any Body who has feen it, that it
wasCW^'/>.^all over. In the Year 1616. the General Jflembly at
^^^y^f^^?, wherein Axcli'^i'iho^Spotsrvood was Moderator, formed a
Dew Confeflion of Faith, which we have at length in Caldermod^s
Hidory from P. 638. This v»^as yet more exprefly and rigidly C/«/i//-
»//. than the other. In the late Epifcopal Times, 7C^(?^'s ConfefTion
of Faith was again revived and fworn to in the Oath of the Tejl, The
whole Epifcopal Ckrgy, except feme few thu^'erelVhiggifblj inclin'd
andrefufeditonother Accounts,went into that Oaih : And therein not
only * declared that they believed thefaid Confeffion to be founded on,
* and agreeable to the written Word of God; i^ut alfo promifed and
* (wore to adhere thereto during all the Days of their Life time, jea
^ -^^^to endeavour to educate their Children therein. After the
RiVQluticfi thQ H^e/lmirJhr Confeifioa of Faith was raiilied and elta*
^~' - --^^ - tlihed
S Kemarh^ on Chap: Z;
bllfhed as the avowed ConfefTion of this Church.' How much Ca/i//-
;?//? that is every one knows. Yet in the Year 1692, the Efifcoful
Clergy, who defired to beaffumed upon the Formula before menti-
oned, promifed * that they would fubfcribe the f^tA Confeffion o£
' Faith and larger and fhorter Catechifm confirmed by A6t of Parlia-
* ,menr,as containing the Dodrine of theProtcftant Religion profefTed
' in this Kingdom. This Promife, if it fignified any more than
a Jugle, which we ought never to fuppofe a Clergy Man guilty
of, could import no leis, than that they own'd the Do8rine of the
Said Qonfelfion and Catechifms to be true, at leaf!, that they did not
judge them to be fundament Ally Falje and Pernicious. This is a fhort
Hiftory of all the Qenfefpens of Faith were ever received in Scotland
fince the Reformation. All of them were formed upon the Cahinijlick
Scheme, all of them have been tffentedto by the Epifcopal Ckrgyy
yet all of them directly contrary to Mr. Rhind\ Book in the Do-
6rine of the Decrees, Prede{iination,Perfeverance, univerfai Re-
demption, univerfal Grace Sec.
Thirdly, His /i^/^W;?^ Church had hsv H^orfbip without a L/V^-
gie, IQioxh Liturgie was falling into Defuetude ere Epifcopacj
was eftablifhed in the Time of King James VI. Befides, Mini-
fiers were never bound to the conflant Obfervance of it. On the
contrary, the Book it felf allows them to ufe the feverat Forms, or
THE LIK.E IN EFFECT. And, faith one of its Rubricks, ' It fhall
* not be necefTary for the Minifter daily to repeat all thefe Things
* before Mentioned, but beginning with fome manner of Con-
' feiPion to proceed to the Sermon ; which being ended, he either
^ ufeththe Prayer for all Eftates before mentioned, or elfe pray-
' eth as the Spirit of God fhall move his Heart, frameing the
* fame according to the Time, and Matter which he hath en-
* treated of-— . 'Tis true there was an Attempt made in the Time
.of K. Charles L to bring in a Liturgie much after the Englifi Model,
But Ineed cot tell the World, that it mifcaried. No won-
■der: For, not only the Body of the Nation and the Bulk of the
Preslrjiters^ hut even the Wifeft and moft experienced of the B/-
,/Jjops weie againft it. This, Gilbert Burnet has Ingenuoufly con-
ic ffcd (hj. This the Author of the Short Account of Scotland, though
Epijc<^
[ /^j Msmcj/es '^f rhelloiile oc H^rr.iliOH. p, ^y
Sea. L Mr. Rfaind^j Title Page; ' 9
Epifcopal, frankly owns page 56. < It was fet on Foot by a For*
• reigner ( J, B. Lxui ) upon the Importunity of fome youn<»
• Bifliops in the Kiik of Scotland, who made it their Bufincfs'^
* to oppofe the Ancients and thought it Matter of Triumph to
* carry any Point againft them. Thus he. In the late Times
before the Revolution^ the Epjcofd Clergy did not fo much as
ElTay to bring in a Liturgie. For many Yearsafterthe Rtvolution,
none of them pahlickly ufed any either in their Churches or Meet-
ing- houfes. And to this Day fome of the beft of them, to my
certain Knowledge, are again ft the Efighfh Liturgie. How thea
can Mr. R^//?^ pretend to be of their Communion, when he ar-
gues not only for the Excellency^ but even the Neceffitj of Forms;
and declares tK,.^ Flat Impertinencies, fubftantial Non-
• fenfe and horrid )iM^hQm\Qs ^ttV (sf AVOID ABLE \n ""' ^'
* the Extemporary Way f . And yetl Keard the Extempnr aryft^y trs
o^Epifcopal MiniftersfiveHunderTirfies.lt feems I have been well
employed. And I have known five hunder People harrafled in
the late Times fot not going to Church to hear fuch Prayers. It
feems it was a merciful! Government that perfecuted People for
not putting themfelves under the unavdiddie Necelfity of hearing
horrid Blafphemies by way of Add«efs to God Almighty.
Fourthly, His Suffering Chmth. exercifed her Dijcipltnehy Lay*
Elders; and this every one knows that lived before the Revolution,
1 conclude then that Mr. RhinA is not of the Communion of tlie
Buffering Clmrch ekher in point of Government ^FaithWorjbip or Dif-
4ifline\ unlefs he can prove that flie hsth changed her Principles
in all thefe within a Score of Years or fo; which Ifuppofe it will
be hard for him to do. And when he has done it, I cannotthink
it will contribute much to the raifiog her Charader to rerrefcnt
her as a CHANGELING.
Let us go on in our Search after his Church. He gives us a Thiri
Hint for finding her, by telling us p. 169. < That he hasembra-
• ced the Communion of that Church whofe Worfliip is the beft
* in the World with Refped to both Mauer and Manner. By
which Charader he would have us to underlland the Church jf
B England,
i 6 Remar\f on Chap. J;
EniUnL But, though he has embraced her, yet fhe is fo far from
embraceing him, that he ftands D£ FJCTO Excommunicated
by her. I fhall have ample Occafion to fhew this when I come
tD confider hisfecond Reafon for \{\s Separation, In the mean Timc,to
fatisfie the Reader's Longing,! fhall give onelnftance tor Proof of itc
Among the other Presbjterian Do6rines which he has declared
Fundamentally Falfe md Pernichus &c, he reckons this as one,
That the beB Actions of Men^ without Grace, are but fo many fplendii
Sins']; The Truth of this Presbyterian Do6frine is obvious even
to common 5enfe: For, how bufie foever a Servant may be, yet if
he has no Regard to the Will of his Malier in what be does, can
his Diligence be reckoned Obedieijce ? Nay, muft not the neglcd^
of his Mafters Authority be imputed to him as a Fault? But, it is
not the Truth of the Do£trine I am now concerned about. Be it true
or falfe, is it not the Do6lrine of the Church of Englmd as Kiucjb
as of the Preibjteriam I Hear her.
Art. XIII.
« XTTORKS done before the Grace of Chrift, and the InfpU
* ^^ ration of his Spirit, are not pleafant to God ; For as much
* as !hey fpring not of Faith in Jefus Chrift, neither do they make
* Men meet to receive Grace or (^ as the School Authors fay j de-
* ferve Grace QiCongruityi yea rather, for that they are not
* done as God bath commanded and willed them to be done, We
f doubt not but that they have the Nature of Sin.
'Tis plain then that he has impugned and rejc6ed the Dof^rine
©f the Church of Er.gUnd, Now let us hear what Ceofure £hp
feas awarded to fuch as do fo.
Canon V. 1^03 1
* VXTHofoever fhall hereafter affirm That any of the XXXIX
* ^^ Articles agreed upon by the /^rchb fbiops and BiOiops of
J both Provinces and whole Clergy in the Convocation hoklen at
* Lonaon
\ 5. 13^. J 57. iS^.,
Sc(3.rj Mr. Rhmd's Title Page: ii
' London in the Year of our Lord 1 562 for the avoiding of Divcrfi-
' tiesof Opinions,andfortheEftabIirhing of Confent touching Truo
' Religion, are in any Part Superftitious or Erroneous, or fuch as
• he may not with a Good Confcience fubfcribe unto ; let him bo
' Excommunicated l?SO FACTO., and not reftored but only by
' the Archbifhop, after his Repentance and publick Revocation oi
; fucfc his Wicked Errors.
Who now will fay that Mr. Rhind is of the Church 0? England
Communion , when fhe has excommunicated him. I conclude
chen upon the whole, That it is not poflible to find that Church
wherein he can becUfled, I mean, here on Earth. As for the VN-^
SPOTTED Church '\ of which the late Edinburgh Addreflers pro-
fefTed themfelves to be, I don't believe it to be on this fide the
plouds.
Sea. IL
Containing RemarJ\s on Mr. Rhind'^i Vreface]
I /^ U R Jpologift is earneft to have his Reader believe that it
V^ was not upon any fmful Byafs or Wordly Confideratioa
that he changed Sides. And therefore in the Beginning of his
preface tells us, ^ That a forcible Convidion, which was the Re-
' fulc of an Impartial Enquiry, determin'd him to abandon the
• Presbyterian Party SOME TEARS AGO when the Church
• was under fevere Preffures in this Nation and when there were
' fmall hopes of Deliverance. But, he has been too General in the
Date of his Converfion, and fome People are tempted to think
there was a Reafonfor it. Her Majefty u'aspleafed SOME TEARS
AGO to v/rite a Gracious Letter to her Privy Council of ScotUnd
of the Date Eth, 4, 1705. in favours of the Epifcofd Clergy and
others of that Profeffion. Her Majefty was. fo far from intending
that the faid Letter fliould have any ill Influence on the Presbyterian
Eftablifhment, that on the Contrary flie recommended it to Her
B 2 Council
\ Sse Ltniort Giw.ce Numb. /o8©.
iir Remarf^ on Chap' 12
Coumil to give them all Due Countenance and Encouragement/
iTet it is abundantly well known in this Nation, That the Efif"^
f^/^/ Party conftruded the faid Letter as a Preface to the overturn*
iDg of Preshj try aad the Reeilablifhinent of Prelacy, As if her
A^ajefty> like a kind Mother teazed wish hungry Children, had '
bid them content rhemfelves a little with that Morfel, till fhe could
get Dinner provided for^thenu And, in Qppofition to all herMa-
jeftics Proraifes a^d AiTurances to the Contrary, the Diftinciioa
betwixt a Secra and. Revealed Will was induftrioufly propagated J
And from that Time fonie young Divines, who hitherto had beeiv
Warmed and Fledged, under the Wings of Presfytry^ began ta
Jook with a more kindly Bye towards the Pr^/-«^M Party, and to
alter their Condud accordingly. If Mr. Rh'wdh Separation was-i
prior to that Time, there is the 'more Charity to be had for him, '
and he was not Kind enough to himfelf in not figniiieing fo much.
But ifit was ajierix, I can lee nothing Extraordinary in it; For,
to run from under a falling Houfe, andto Worlhif therifeingSun^
is what Feop!e>da every Day.
Befides, how litle Encoaragement foever Mx.Rhind might hop«
for from the SVFFERING Church in Scotland, yet he might very
reafonably, upon his revok, expeG: more clfewhere than ever h*
could have found among the PreshyterUns. AVreshyterian Mini-'
iier is like the Heath in the Wildernefs that never grows higher.
When once he has got himfelf pofTelTed of a Church, however
foineifighis Parts a re^ there is a ne plus uUta fet to his Ambition.
But in the PreUtick Way there are various Degrees of D/gmty ta
animate the generous Spirit. 'Tis pofiible one may Rife from 91
Curat io a Re^or from ihQnzQ to 2iDemy Archdeacon ox {o^2it\Qngt\ii
obtain- a Mitre,, and never ceafe advanceing till he hath lodged
himfelf in Lamhth. Though I will not fuppofe Mr. K/;/W foairy
as ever to have Dreamed of mounting the highefl Pinacle of Ho-
nour ; yet had he fo humble an Opinion of himfelf as not to allow
liimfelf to think that he might one Day merit fome of the grcaur
Church Dig?3Ujes? Was it no Motive to him to know that thert
are. People in the World much fonder.of aProielyt from Presbjtr'^
than from Paganifm, And that j^he.writeing of 'dn^ Apology raighe
?efy much cofltribute .to his ^dvaqctmexit f He.do6s not feem to
' "^"■~ ■ ' " fe5
%cSt. 11 Mr. Rhlnd'/ Vreface. i^
10 be\very much a Stranger to good Authors, as not to havt
^tard ofjtdyefjai's Secret for rifeing in the World.
Wcu'djithou ioHonoms and Vnferments Climhy
Be hold ia Mijchief\ dire fome mighty Crime.
Mx^Drydm idiUi I. 7-jJ.
And is not Dr. S{ichevffrel2iVtQ^i Tnftance of the Wifdomofthat
Precept, whofe high Mifdemeanours made him at once the Idol and
Darling of high Church, the Theam of ber Praife, and Obje«^ of
her Bounty.
II. He has been pleafed in his Yreface to give his own favour-
able Judgement of his Performance, of the VUinnefs ef his St tie and
Thought ^x.\\Q Linking of his Arguments an<i foon. And I think it
cannot be amifs to give mine too,, before I enter on the Book it
felf. Befidesthe ill Nature ( already noticed ; which bewrays it
.felf almolt in every Page, and ii fometimcs continued through
fnany, without fo much &s one Ray of Truth to qaalifie it. Befides
this, I fay, his Book bears Three other Characters, none of the
moft lovely indeed yet too Remarkable to efcape Notice. I mean,
V^rnfy^ Dogr,:aticAlnefs and Prophanefs,
I. Canity. With a very diftinguifhing Air be affures the Reader f
* That he meant fomething elfe by the length of his Narrative
* than to add to the Number of his Pages. This was fo necefTary
an Inmswdo^ fo pretty a Fhrafe, that he thought fit to repeat it a-
gain in his own Favours p. 79. He had before told, in his printed
Sermon on Liturgy^ That his Genius and the Courfe of his Studies
had habituated him to fome Application of Thought. This was of fo
great Moment to be known, perhaps fo hard to be gathered from
his Writeings, that he now tells it over again in his Apology p. 159^
Again p. 199 he difpcnfes with himfelf from miteing a tenure ca
the Ammal Oeconomy and accounting Mechanically for all the Ph^^nome-.
na of the Presbyterian Devotion,hcaufe he wants Leifure, No doubt.
Yet fome People think it had been not only as ModesJ,' but as
Truem Excuie to have faid he wanted Ability, In the mean Time
14 Kemarl^on Chap l^
lie Is not fo Judas to own that what he has already advanced on
that Head he ows to Dr. Scot in his Sermon on Bodily Ex$reife from
I Tim. 4. 8. and other Places of his Works.
2. Dogmaticdnefs. He writes with the fame Pofitive Air asif he
were infallible. Every thing adduced on the Presbyterian Side is
with him Wedmfs^ Prejudice, an Argument of a D^T/'^r^/'^ O^A and
the like. What hehimfelf advances, is put beyond all Doubt, and
he hopes Everj difcerning And unprejudiced Reader will take the Hint, and
Ife convinced as well as he. Nay it fliall be an Impeachment of the Divine
Wifdrm to think differently from him. Nay our Lord himfelf behoved
to do according to Mr. Rhind^s Didates. Repeated Inftancesof this
Prefumption we fliall meet with afterwards. The moft Learned of
t\\Q Arminian Side in the Church of England have owned, that the
€alvinijls have rofay for their Opinions on the Controverted Points,
what is not to be eafily anfwered. But there is nothing too hard for
Mr. Rhind, Conditional Decrees, Freewill, the Apoftaey of the Saints^
1)niverfal Redemption, Vniverfal Grace 2i^Q2\\ as clear to him as Self-
evident Propofitions. Nay, foftrong has his Fancy wrought ; that,
as if he had for ever decided the Epif copal, Jrminian., and Liturgical
Con t rove rfies, He concludes his Book in the Mathematical Stile with
a ^. £. D.
3. Profanefs, Hefets himfelf induftrioufly frompag. i89.topagJ
'207. to put the moft facred Things in the moft Burleique Air poflibleJ
TheVrcsbyterians, faith, he, pag. 200, tell a long hutfenfelefs Hory of the
Manner of Gods dealing with tht Souls of his Ele^, how the Work of Grace
is carried on then, and how their Regeneration is compleated.'" 'Tis true,
the P^r j^jf f r /^»j do talk of thefe Things*, but how long andfenfelefs
foever the Story is, the Subftance of it is what every good Man feels ;
'Tis what the Spirit of God works; 'Tis a Story which the Church
of £/?^/^./;^ Divines, the moft judicious of thera (i), Bifhops too a-
mong the Reft, have told a thoufand times over, and feme of them
very lately (lr)f\ am not to repeat the r^ft of his impious Stuff vomit-
ed out on that Hesd ; once printing it Was too much. I only wifh
iint our Frelatick Writers, tho' they don't regard Man, yet would
r '" ^ See Hoo^^^r's Sermons fubjoiacd CO his Ecclef. Polk. Edit. London 170/. [hi Biflaop Utfilun), THf
j:JW€rJi. Sec
Sed. /A Mr. Khmd' s Preface: ij
at lead: fear God. For I fuppofe that no Man that reads the latter Part
of Mr.R/^/^^sBook will ftick to acknowledge th^t Lucian, Celfus^
VaniHus^ Spl»ofa^ Blount^ may be reckoned modeft Chriftians in
Comparifon of him.
III. Towards the End ofthe Preface, Mr. R^/W, apprehending
forae one or other might effay todifprove his Apo/ogy, thinks fit to
befpeak civil Ufage for himfelf; with Certification, that in Cafe he
is not thus ufed, We wlU expofe the Presbyterians yei more full) to the World,
Were I of his Council, I wou'd advife him, ere he proceed further,
once to prove the Chara£lers whereby he has already attempted to
expofethem, left he eftahlifh a Ch3ra(^er upon himfelf and the
Party He (erves that will be none of the moft honourable. Nor
let him fear it will be reckoned Pedantry to ftudd his Margin
with Vouchers: Forlcan affurehim, the World is now fomuchln-
fidcl, Whigs efpecially, as not much to regard Affertion without
Probation. Ifthe Presh^terhns arefuch ashe h^isreprefenied them,
he cannot eyped civil Ufage from them. And if they are not fuch, he
may hefenfiblehehasnot deferved it. However, tomakehimeafy^
I fhall promife him all fair Quarter, and refent his InveQives na
otherwife than by NegleQ ; Or if I chance at any Time to drav/
his Piflure, it fball be with Canvafs and Colours of his own
furnifhing.
IV. lam now to enter on the Book it felf. I have heard it both
from Prelatijis2indi PresbyterLus^ that it was not done by Mr. Rhini
himfelf, but that his St'/ir^/i^);; haveing given the Occafion, abetter
Hand than his did the V/ork, and borrowed his Name to it. The
Pr^/^.'///jpoflibly give out ihis to gain the greater Reputation to the
Performance. But iffo, 'tis a very mean Politick; For, by hoy
much it magnifies the Book, itdifgraces the Man, and atonceleflens
their o^yn Trophy and the ^resbyterUrPs Lof?. The Presbyterians
found on this, that while he attended his Studies among them, tho'
hisZ':aUgainftthe PreUts was flaming high, yet hisother Accom-
plillimentsdidnotfeem proportional. In a V/ord, That he did not
make fuch a Figure as promifedan Author. But this Conjecture alfo
is too weak. For Years and Application doofiimes make furprizing
Changes on Young Perfons. I do indeed brieve that the Book ums
written auhe Defiye, and pubhlhed uj^ion the Approbation of the
Leaders
iiS Remdrl^ on Chap; I;
Leaders ofthe Party. But I as firmly beHevj^Mr. R^/Wtobe^hetrue
Father; and feeing he owns the Book and none elfe claims it, I can
fee no Reafon why any Body fhould believe othtrwife.I am fo much
convinced it is his,that I take the w hole Book to be pieced up o^Sermot7s,
he had preached at feveral Occafions, or at leaft of large Shreds of
them artfully tacked together. Some^ fuch Sermons were neceflary to
ingratiathim wiih his new Mafiers, hhharaf^guemg Way feems rather
adapted for Sermo/;s C accordmg to the Epifcopal Way of Sermonizing )
than for a Difpute. And which confirms all, I find a good l^art"of
hisS^rmon u^on Litmgie,\j\\\^\i he preached and printed in the Year
1 7 1 1 engrofled 'verbatim into his Aplogj^ tlio' he has not acquaiflE;
^d his Reader therewith.
Seel:, ni.
Containing RemarJ^ on Mr R hinds Narrative of
the Manner hojp Hefe^aratedfrom theFr^shy"^
tmanPartj. FmnF. i.,i{?P, 2^0
THE SumofhlsA^^rr^/ix'^f is, That he was educated Preslfy^
teriarj, turned 5ff/'//V/(: upon Choice^ that he might find ou?
the Truth ; the Refult of which was that he fep/irated upon
Convi5fio^, He has indetd gone far to fcarr oiie from Qiiarrelhng
the Account he has given,by promifmg p. 6.to deliver the fame with as
,much Si'Merity /isftjAllhe theje Words with which hi: hofas to conmarm his %oul
atlasJroGod. And yetl muft needs declare,! do not find My Sell ob-
liged even in Charity, much lefsin "Juftice to believe it. I cannot
•Jielp thinking it is a Viece of Poefie rathsr tfean Hifiory,^ IxandforKe Ftciiwii
<of the Method bethinks he ought to have taken, rather than a
real Account of what in Fait he did take. I am aware how hard-
ly tUs my Judgement may be confiruded of. But I crave to
bt hr.ard, and then let the Reader give Sentence. i
By Mr.i^/'/W^sownAccountp.d. He was educated JPm^;/tfm«.
Wheal
Sea. ///. Mr. K}c{mdi'sNaFmm IJ
When he had run through the ordinary Courfe o[ iht Langun^es
Sitid Philofophy and commenced Ma^er of Art s^ Heapplyedhimfelf,
to the Study of Divinity. After feveral Years Attendance on that'
he went home to his own Country the Shire o^Rofs to undergo
Trials in Order to be hcenfed a Preacher.
All this while he was fo far from being fufpeCied to incline td
Prelacy, that he received particular Favours from the Presbyterians, as
hehimfelfowns p. 7. And as he was not fufpeded, fo indeed there
was no apparent Kcz^on vAiy h^fiould: For he owns p. 8. not only
that he was really Presi^jteriaff inhis Judgment, but that he was a
Zealot in that Way.
By all this Account we find him at leaft 21 Years of Age Corn-
pleat : For no fooner do the Vresbyterims admit Men (0 be Preach-
cJts, or enter Them onTrjals for that End. And yet all this Time
he had not entertain'd a Thought of Separating-, nay he had
not brought his Mind to a Sulpence or Equilihium about the
Con trover fy ; For, how could he efTay to Commence Preacher a-
mongft the VreskyterianSy while he was undetermined to the one
Side or the other?
Again he tells us p. 152 that he was but 22 Years among the
Vresbyterians, There is then but om Year left for doing all thefe
Things, and makeing all thefe Enquiries he mentions in his Nar*
rative^Sind at lafi: determining himfelf. But if he did 'em all in
one Year, I dare be bold to pronounce it was a Miracle : Being
well aiTured it v/ould have employed any ordinary M^nfeven. A
Ihort abftrai^ of his Narrative will fufficiently demonftrate this.
1. When the Luckis Minute w^zs come that v/asto give a Begin-
ning to his Converfion, he conceived a very juft Sufpicicn that'thc
many Opinions, wherewith he found his Mind crowded, were
liot all either well come by or right founded. From this hecon-
cluded, that therefore it was rcafonable if not neceidary to examine
and bring them to the Tefi:. But in order to this Prejudices were
to he fiaken ojf, p. 9. 10, Every Body that has a competent
Knowledge of himfelf will allow that this v^as not to be done
without Time.
2. Thus prepared, He made the firfl: Experiment infome Pht^
fofo^hical points. And, after a mdp Impartial and Accurat Exam-
' Q ~ t^ation
i^ Remar^ Off Chap.' L>
ff0th^ foun^, That what formerly he had admitted upon a fuppo-
fed fcientifick Evidence was in it felf abfolutly Falfe p. n.
Every ore will own that this was not to be done at a Start.
^. Thence he proceeded to try whether his Religious Opinions
were not as ill founded as his Fhihfophicd ones. For that End
he threw himfelfinto a StateofabfoluteiV^/z/a/w, and found that
he had yeilded too Impliciie an Affent to them. p. 12. Suppofe-
ing this had been Lawfull, yet, I hope, it will be granted it was
npt the Work of a Day.
4. After all this Labour to unhinge himfelf,he next began tofearch.
where he might fix. To that Purpofe he entered upon the/wo/ ImpAr*
tsdditidi -/#ff«r4^ Examination of the £jf/"^«^M/ Articles of Religion
he was able to make ; and ceafed not till he was TAtionally per»
f waded about the Truth of a A^^^/zr^/ Religion, p. 15. This, con-
fidering how many fine Books have been writ on that Subjed,, .
and how niany fhrewd Things have been advanced againft it by.
fuch as are called the Wits of the World, and, which Mr,Rhfnd'*s-
curious Gmius would undoubtedly engage him to perufe, wou'd
be fufficient to exercife him a very confiderable Time.
5. He next carried his Enquiries to revealed Religion ; and ex-
^min'd the mceffity of Revelation, ihQ certainty of that which is
owned as fuch by Chriftians, in a Word the r?-»/^ of the
CbrijltAn, Religion, and the Divimty of the Holy Scriptures. Ihid,
What a large Subject of Difquifition this is, and how much Time .
it wou'd require may be eafily conjedured.
6. When he had got himtelf convinced of the Truth of the Chri*
pian Religion, his Labour, was but beginning: For Chriftians.
being multiplied into fo many Sefts, which of them could he be-
lieve in the Right, when each of them pretended to be fo ? He
refolved then only to examine the Fretenfions of the moft confi-
derable Parties viz.,. The Roman . Caiholicks and Frote^ants^ .
For that End he laid afide all Prejudices and ferioufly examin'd
4II that is commonly adduced foror agaiaft the. Rotmn Caiholick ,
Way, p. 14. 15.., Now, who knows not, that the Pc/'/yZ?. Con tro-
ver fie*^ arc fo very large a Field, as to requiie fwveral .years Tra*.-
vej to get through them to Purpoft ? >:
7. He,parced Ways, with thi^ Iniailibie Church j though Upon a i
very,
Scd. IH; Mr. Rhind'/ Narrative, 19
▼cryfmall Quarrel, as we fhall hear afterward. But then he found
the Proteflants cantonM into lo many Parties, that he was in a
great Qiiandary where io findreH for the Sole of his Foot. Where-
fore, to fhortea his Work, he refolved to confine his Examinati-
on to the Epffcflpal and Presl^yteria/i ?ev(waCions, And hereitcoft
him both Time and Pains to divert himfelf of his Prepofeffions iti
favours of Pre shy try ^ and to {hake of the Prejudices he had con-
tra6led or been educate in againft Epifco^Acy, and to fortifie his
Soul againft the Tentations of Perfecution and Want in Cafe h©
were determined to the Eptfcopal Side. p. i6.— 20.
This being done he entered upon a very huge Task.
' I. He did read the Old and New Teftament all over p. 2«."
Now though a Shift may be made to get through that Book ia
a fhort Time, yet it is a large one, and when one applys himfelf
to readmit with a View to be determined by it in controverted
Points, wrhich was Mr. Rhifid's Cafe, He'll find it a confiderabk
Labour.
2. After the Bible, he engaged himfelf in reading the Wo'ks
of the Pdthers, efpecially thole ot the three firft Ages. In which
Courfe of reading he fj^rrowly obferved rphdtever could fervetode-
termin the Controverfies in Hand. p. 21. 22. This was a yec
larger task than the Former ; for tho' he had never gone beyond
the third Age ; yet, to get through the Works o^ Clemtns Rom/t"
f/us, Barnabas^ IgnAtius, Polycarp^ Hermas, Jufiiff Martyr, AthenagO'
ras, Theophilaf, TatiarjuSy Ire^aus^Tertullia^, Clemens Alex.indrinus^
Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobias, La^antius, SfC. To
get through all thefe I fay, with the Htftories relateing to their
Times, was Sufficient to employ one a longer Time than Mr.
Rhind\ Account can well admit of.
3. And yet he was not near an End of his Toil: For being
curious to know TP^^/^i/^-r was written on the Head of Government,
he read the Controvertifts of both fides on all the Subjed^s ia
l^b-ite. In which, he declares, He was fo fcrupuloujly exa^ that
lie does not remember any Author of a?}y Name whom he did
not perufe except Salmafus alone, which he could not come by.
p. 22—25. 'rhis was to be diligent in good Earncft: For, to
read on the Epifcvpal Side Andrews, Bancroft^ Bill on ^ Burges, Chi^
C 3 Itngrvorth^
20 Eemar\s on Ghap 7;
lingrvorth^ Dounham^ Vodrvetl, Hooker y Hdl, Heylh^Hammo^d, Homey*
m^?7^ Maurice, Monro, Saravia, Sage, Scot, SutUvitis, Tile^. On the
Fresbpevii?} Side Bszn, Bain^ Ducer, Bloudel, Bailie, Cfirtwrigh!:, CaU
derrvcod, CUrkjon^ Gilhffie, Forrejler, Jamcfo^i, Rutkrfoord, Rule,vj\\.\i
a long et cetera on both fides, to read all thefs Autliors, I fay,
and to read them fo as diiely to weigh the Arguments, ObjeQions,
Anfwers, Exceptions and Replys was a HercJem Labour. But
where is there Time for it by Mr. Kbind\ Account? . And yec
he had not done with it. For
' 4. As to the other Controverfiss that relate to Doftrim, Wor-
fbip S:c. He confulted the refpe8ive Authors pr^ and <r^^/. p. 26,
That is to fay, he (ludied the Armmh}} and Litmgkd Controver-
fies, which, Every one knows, require both much Time and great
Application, Yet after all this he^ was only fliocked, not ab(o-
lutly determin'd. For ^
5. To the Stiidy of Books he added Conver/dtion with learned
Mef?,\\Q colleBed his Gbfervations on the Spirit and Principles of
the Party of which he. had folong been; and took Time to inform
himfelf about what he did not know of the other. And narrowly ob-
ferved how the 5/?/m and Vrimi^les of both difcovered themlelves^
by overt ACTS. All this he did, not o^ce but many Times ;^
and after all this he had his Soul to workup to a due Serioufnefs
and Intention of Thought ; and then once more recolleQed what
he had learned from Men,Books,or his own Experience /(?/ or againft
cuher Principle or Party. Not till this was done, and the Aid and Di-
rc£lion ofGodinvocked, was he determin'd in his Judgment. And
even when he was determin'd^ Bafhfullnefs or Fear relirained Him,
till at laft a forcible Convidion and the fevere Remonftrances of his
Gonfcience obliged him publickly to declare himfelf p. 2^-29.
This is his Account ^ but now,how a Man could do all chis within
the Space of 22 Years^ when he had not fo much as a Thought of
doing ar>y Thing of it atan Age wherein hewascapable to be a
Preacher, which we cannot fuppofe earlier than 21; that is, in a
Word, how Mr, R^/W could do that in one Year, which wou'd have
keptany ordinary Manconftantly bufie^^w;^ Years, He has yet to
account fortoths World. .And till it be done, he muiiexcufe his
Jlfl^ersj^ Me ^^legft J irosn,- believing tjie Sincerity of hisiV^A-r^z/V^V
Sc(3:; 7//J Mr. Rhind'S Narrative b i
notvvitb (landing the Solemnity of his AfTcveration. Andfo I pro-^
ceedinmy Renr.arks,
IF. Tho' Mr. Rhwdhdis told us p. 6. That heows his Birth 7o Pref.
bjter tan Parents^ yet he has conceal'd his having been baptized by a
Treshyteria'isM\m{\Q\\ Did it look like Sincerity todilTemble that
which was of fo great Moment to be known? I feriouily declare I
do not intend Bayner oi Raillery by this particular ; but touch upoa
it, becaufe,sccording to Mr. /<Z^i/2^1-s Principles, itisofthe laft Lon-
fequence not only to himfelfbut poflibly lo many others. He is in a
much worfe Condition than if he had been baptized by a meer Lay*
man or Midwife in the Church of^Ehgla^^d: For, tho' Baptifm as
difpenfedby them is irregular, yet being Chriftians, within the
Church, and having at leait the Connivance of the Bifbopy it is not
Invalid and therefore is nor repeated, <?r^//;W)' at lea rf. But Prr^-
bjtevia}} Miniders are no Chriftians. They- are by his Scheme, not
only rv it hout the Churchy but Enemies to it. Their Baptifm then is
null and can have no EileO:, even tho' the Perfon is afterwards
confirmed by ihQBifiop: For, what is in its own Nature null can
never be made valid by a PoderiorDeed : And therefore, as Dr.
i^/i:^i informs us (/) the Church has provided the Office fov the
B^ptifmofthofe of riper Te^rs^ which was not Originally in the Liturghy
on Furpofe toaniwer the Cafe ofPerfons in fuchCircumdances.
This mud needs affe£i- Mr. Rhind very heavily : For, according to
his own Principles concerning Baptifm ^, He is no Chriliian, is
without Grace, incapable oi Salvation, can neither be PrieR nor i3ea-
con, confeqiiently the Baptifm difpenfed by him toothers is Null ;
ConfequentIy,by his Principles, they muft all be Damned uExira^ ■
c?7iV//4?jy Mercy interpofe not. -I could not think of all this without •
Horror, . and therefore am in Pain till Ihear how heextricatshim-
felf. By all I can apprehend there is but one Way to fave him and
prevent further IV; iichief, viz. toget £///cr?/?4i Baptifm. Ifheisnoc
convinced of the NeceflTity of this by what I have faid, I recommend
to.him to read Mr. Laurence's late Book of the Invalidity of Lay-Bap^
iifm^ v^here he may have allObjedions anfwered, and both Argu-
ments and an Example to perfwade him. •
IJL
r 1 3 Prefice lo the luvilidii^y of Lay-E^pui'?). * P, 177.
&c.
2^ Remar\s on Chapi /.
III. Mr, RhMdiW profefles that,while he was among the Pr/^^j/^y^-
^r.^hc was Tv/^^o«/ the Church and incapable of Salvation. One would
think therefore that he fhouldhave afcribedto God the firft Hint
was given him to tiiske his Efcape out offo dangerous a State. Even
the Church of Ew^/^;?^ Divines themfelves who have gone off th«
Oilvwia'4 Scheme do yet acknowledge zpeventtng Grace. But
doesiMr. R/^/Wtbisi* No. He afcribes it to himfelf and hisown
Thought ; and that, as I take Him, under a favourable FUmdry
AfpeO". When I hdd arrived^ faith he p. 9. af acomfetent Jge, hfomt
luiky minute^ myT bought s fugge (led to me the reafonablemfsof myefiqui-
rhgrnomy OpimoMS about Tnin?*-. -Godis not brought into the Ac-
count here, Nayhehasnot fomuchasa Hint cf Jiddrefling him by
Prayer, till he had DETERMINED himfelf as to A^^^/zr^/ Religion,
tijlhe had got himfelf perfwaded of the Truth of the ChriflUn Religi-
on, and till he had refolved himfelf againft the Romifh. Jfter^ alhhis^
andnofooner, didheaddrefs the God of all Truth p. 19. This Con-
, dud of his was defign'd and founded upon two Reafons which the
.Reader may weigh at his Pleafure. Firft, He is fo much an Enemy
ro EMthuftafm^ that he did not think it would become him to im-
■ put€ any Morion in his Soul to the Spirit of God : For the Manmr of
Uod'-s Dedtwg with the Sou/sofhis Ele^isbut afenfeiefi Story^ audit
W^s below his Philofophical Genius /o afcttbethat to a Divim Efficiemy
which might otherwife be accounted for. Secondly, His Story would not
:iiave told right, if he . fhouldhave owned God. For he was refolved
to throw himfelf into a State of Scepttcifm^ wherein he was to fuf-
pend the Belief of the Being of a God. And in that State it had been
very unacountable to pray to him : For evtry one that comes to God^
muH believe thdt he is. It will therefore be very neceffary that Mr.
Rhind in his next explain alit le Ufcn the lucky Mimte^ becaufe
People are much in the(Dr"k about it.
iV. Mr. R/?^W p. 7. makes Mention in general of his Obligatio.is
to xho. Presbyter iam. But did he intend thereby to teftify his Grati-
.tude ? No. The whole Strain of his Book is Evidence that he had
loft all ImprefTionsofthat; but he does it, that hemayraife hisown
»CLara£ier, by (hewing, againft how great Tentationsto the contra-
ry he had fepar^tefrom'/Z^^w?, and upon what Difinterefled Views
.heiM come over, to^he tPifaopd Side. This is plain from his own
Words
ScSii ni Mr. Rbind*.f Narrative: ^f
Words p. 8. * And if now that I am none of theirs; and if after
'having received (omany Difcourtefiesfromthemjldo ftill entertain
* agraiefull Refentment of their Favours, Imagine how deep the
* ImprelTion muft have been, and how much I would be prejudi-
* cate in Their behalf, when adually allowed very hberal Ex-
* prelTions of Their Favour and Efteem— — . I cannot perfwade
My Self that fuch Artifice wou'd become a Man recommending
His Soulto God in His lafl: Minutes,
V. I faid before That He parted Ways with the Church of
Rome upon a very flender Qijarrel. What was it? Take it in
His own Words />. 15. ' Though I had been convinced of the
* Truth of all the Articles of Pope Pius's Creed^C which jyo« may thhky
* would argue a ftrong Faith,& a great Deal of Violence offered to my
* Reafon) yet could I never be perfwaded, That the Damning
* of all who did not believe as I did, fhould be a Condition of
^ My Salvation. In a word, the 4%; qua Ftde^ drc which They
* had made a Term of Communion and an Article of Their Fdith,
* was (0 choaking that it would not believe for Me; And as the
* Disbelief of this One Artitle^ would hinder Their receiving Me,
^ into Their Communion ; ^ So indeed, this alone abundantly con-
* vinced Me, that I fhould never enter into it? For underdanding
this, the Reader muft know, that Pope Pias*s Creed, after a Re-
hearfalof ihefeveral Articles,haththis affixed, And the fame true Ca^
tholick Fiith^ VVIHOUT WHICH NO MAN CAN BE SA-
VED-— / the fame N do vorv and [wear. This damning Claufc was
the Quarrel ; but I affirm that, fuppofeing he had been convinced of
the Truth of all the Other Articles^ it was no good one; becaufe he
has already done the fame. The Church of England^ to which
Mr. Rhiad has join'd himfelf, hath engfolTed the Athanaftan Creed
in her Liturgy: And yet that Creed has at leaft two fuch damning
Claufes,and in harder Words too; one in the Beginning. ' Who-
* foever- will be faved, before all Things it is necellary that he
* hold the Catholick Faith, which Faith except every one do keep
* Holy and uadefikd, without. doubt he fhall psrifli everlaftingly.
* Amiher At the End. This is the -Catholick Faith, which except
^ a Man believe faithfully he cannot be faved.
Wiiy. then did He xefufe the /<<?/»<«» Catholick Communion, for
that
3^ 'Remar\ron ' ' "^ Chap/IJ
that which be has approved of in the Church of ErigUrjd Communi-J
on ? I cannot fay it was unwifely done: For, the fmaller the Suar'i
rel was, the eafier may the Recomiliatio^ be.
VI. While Mr. Rhind is giveing an Account of his own Study of
i\iQFathers^\\Q falls heavily p. 21 upon ihtFresbyteriamiov their want of
Refpe6l to them. But has he adduced in all his Book one In-
fiance from the Writings of the P^'^j^j^w/i^i to prove his Charge?
Not one. What meant he then ? Why he knew that was a
Commo^.^Uce hx diQQ\2^\m\ng on among his Party, and it had been
a Pity to mi's it. No other Proof has hQ for his Charge, unlefs
you'i] be fo kind as to take his own AfTertions. They who had th&
DircEiions oj my Studies ^ faith he, never recommended to me the reading
fo much as of one Father, No wonder truly, it was foon enough
to begin the Study of the Fathers at the Age of 22. Moft part
of young Men are not fooner Ripe for it; and at that Age Mr,
K/?//?^ fepa rated. Vt'i^io^ Burnet is thought to have tolerable good
Skill in training young Theoiogues, now hear him (m'), * It may
^ feem ftrange, that in this whole DireOion, I have faid nothing
^concerning the Study of the Fathers or Church Hiftcry. But I
•faid at firft, That a great Diftin6lion was to be made between
* what was neceffaryto prepare a Man to be a Prieft, and what
* v;as NecelTary to make himacompleat and learned D/w>f. The
^ knowledge of thefe Things is neceffary to the latter, though they
^ do not feem fo neceffary for the former: There are many
^ Things to be left to the Profecution of a Divines Study, that:
* therefore are not mentioned here, without any defign to difpa-
* rags that fort of Learning, Thus He. But, proceeds Mr. K%^,
I frequently heard them talk CG'/itempihiy of them a}?d their Works ^excep-
tiyjg fill St. Augudines Books of Predelthation and Grace, That
excellent Perfon Mr. George Meldrum^ late Pfcfefor of Divwity at
Edmhurgh \V2iS he who /^^^ the DireBion of Mr, Rhind'j 5/W/>5.
if H^ talked contemptibly of the Fathers^ lean lay from my own
perfonal Knowledge of Him, tobeconfirn^.ed by many Thoulands
yet alive; that it was what he hardly ever did of any Body clfe.
Mw Rhind then mud prove this ere he is Believedc
Bui
l»n)Vt.'Xo:z\Ctvc p, i"*.
Sea. IIL Mr. Rhind^j Narrative: 25
But while he charges the PreshyterUfis fo fiercely on this Head '
why does he himfelf give fuch a Contempible Hint of AuguHin I
Why p. J 14 talks he {o contemptibly o[ Jerom Thathe coyjtradtcts
hlmfdf hz ? Why, AuguUin was for the Do£trines of Predefti^
TtAtion and Qrace^ and '^erom for Presbytry, both which are Mr.
RhM\ Averfion; yet one would think he fliould not deny that
Freedom to Presbyterians which he takes to himfelf. 1hQ?res^
bytertAns willingly acknowledge that the Fathers have done excel-
lent Things; yet they don't believe They were infallible^ They
fticknot to fay that the Fathsrs were fubjed to the fame Infirmi-
ties with other Men, and their Works as full of grofs Efcapes
as thefe of latter Authors, and that they wrote ( as themfelves ac-
knowledge ) crude/ly and Icofely till Herefies and Schifmsarifting
taught them more Corre£lnefs. And do not the Church of £«-
gland Divines talk as contemftibly of them as all this, or whatever
elfe Presbyterians have faid of them can amount to ? Yes. Never
was there a Set of Writers in the World that treated the Fathers
more homely and coarfely than they do. The only Difference is,
that they fall into this Strain, when they find the Fathers to be
iigainjt Them. But then when they either are Onf^ or can be
fcrewedowr to their own Side, Gh then ! the f^//;^r^ are all Oracles,
and 'tis the Sin of Charn to open a Mouth againft Them. Need
I cite Inftances to prove all this? No. 'Tis clear to every one
that's acquaint with their Writeings, yet I fhall give one or two for
fatisfieingtbe Reader. One of Mr. K/i^/>/^'s learned Brethren of the Cler-
gy f has lately appeared very loudly in Defence of the Book about An^
tichrtU afcribed to Hippolitus^ihou^ no Man that had not quite profti.
tute His Senfe would have done it. He has been told how Coke^
JFuiky li^hitaker three famous Divines of the Church ofEz-^^/^Whave
dilparaged it, and how Monfieur /<? jp(?7:^r^ that eminent CV/^/^X'hatli
made a Jeft: of it, and how, fuppofeing it were, what he would
have it to be, it yet makes nothmg for his Furpofe. Yec
lie, like a true Teague, is refolved to keep his Text, whatever he
fay on it. To put him in Humour then, after fo much Wrath, it
Jhail be allowed that HippeUtus\ Book is Genuine. Now hear
D with
i Mr. Qdieu
26 RemarJ^ on Chapl L
with what profound Refped Jewell Bifhop of Salisbury treats (n)
the Reverend Father and his Work. ' 'Tis a very little Book,
* of fmall Price and as fmall Credit-' It appeareth it was feme
* fmfle Man that wrote the Book, both for the Phrafes of his Speech
* in the Greek Tongue, which commonly are wry Childijh^ and
* alfo for the Truth and Weight- of the Matter. He beginneth the
* firft Sentence of his Book with Emm which a 'very Child would
fcarcely do. After a Recital of feveral of his Blunders he adds.
* And this he faith without either Warrmt of the Scriptures,^ or
* -Juthority of the Church- -He alledgeth the Apocalypfe of S. John
* in the Stead of D/^;?/^/, which is a Token of ^^-^^^ Igmrame
^ ox oi marvellous Oblivion. Say now, what Difcipline a Presbyteri-
an had deferved, had he treated fo worthy a Father fo familiarly.
Take another Inlknce. Bifliop Whitgtft (<!) runs a Compariloii
'rwixt the Fathers, and the Englijh Bifhops in Truth of Dottrwe, Ho-
nefiyofLife, and RtgM ufe of ExterndThifsgs, and very mannerly
gives the Preference to himfelf and his Colleagues in ail the three.
If thefe Inffances are not fufRcient, Mr. Rhtnd may have five
hunder moe upon demand, and perhaps fomeof them ere we have
done ^. To put an End for ever to this Topick of declaiming
againfl: the Presbyterians^ I here challange the Epi/copalians to make
a ColleQion of all the Contemptible Things the Presbyterians havQ
written of the Fathers. And if I do not make as large a Colleftion
ot^ QsConten^ptible Things that the Ep/fccpal Amhors have written
of them, it fhallbe owned they have Reafon for their Declamati-
®ns. If they refafe this, they mufl: give us a Reafon why
they may make bold with the Fathers, and the Presbyterians not.
Have Prelatijls only the Priviledge of railing at 'em ?
VII. Mr. Ki?/;?^ gives an ample enough Commendation to the
Writers of his . own Way. I found them ally faith he, p. 2 g. to be Men of^
Difcretion and Sen fe^ fo that jhculd I nxme all whom I thought to have
a^ed their Vart handfomly, 1 {Jjould have none unnamed. Is this the
Sincerity hepromifed? Could he find never c'/^^fenfekfs Author on
thQ EpifcopalSidt? Why certainly he has looked on them with a
l^v^r's Eye ; for who is there that knows not, that the Confufion of
Languages
(«; Rcpl/ to M. H.ir<f;>»^s,Aiif. Art. !•. P^Y ; J. (0} Defence.©/ thc.Aaf, p. 47*^. 2
Sea. in. Mr Rhmd'sNarmhel "' ^y
Languages at Bdel was nerer greater than is among tlie Eftfupd
Writers ? Where fhall we find any trvooi them that go entirely upon
the fame Scheme ? Does not every Body know how they mutually
rejeft each others Arguments ? Should I inftanee any of their Writers
whom 1 judge to have performed bucfo and fo, I know I would be
declined ^s a partial Jiidge ; but let us hear one of Themfelves giveing
theCharader of his Fellows that went before him. Mv. Thomas Ed"
tvards afferts Q) of them, That as to their Proofs out of Scripture,
* They underitood not what they faid, nor whereof they affirmed.
And in a later Book (^ ^ He is fo far from repenting ofthefe hard
Words, that * he hopes every Body will grant he had reafon for
Them. And he would not have this meant of (?/?? or /rvoonlyofhis
Fellow Writers, but of the whole Bulk of them. And therefore he
fulls down th whole Frame of Epijcopacy to build it after his own new
and better Fafhioa- Now either M. Edwards has not aQed his
part handfomely, or none of the reft have : For it isfure but a forry
Way of 4^/>??', when o;^^ knows not what he fays, orwhtreofheajfirms.
Vlir. Of all the Efifcofal Authors Mr. Rhind gives the Preference
to M. Dodwell and M. Sage f. To the firft particularly for his Book of
Schifm, and that of the One Priefthoed and one Altar ; and to the latter
for his Principles of I he Cyprianick Aged^n^ i\\Q Vindication thereof.
That M. Dodwell was a Man of vaft Reading and Abftraft Life
every one muft acknowledge ; but that his Books are of a moft per-
nicious Tendency, I am well perfwaded,noone ought to deny. For,
in Order to make Room for ^hntXng Prelacy) He hath, fo far as his
Principles prevail, not only deftroyed Charity, but grubbed up the
very Roots of Chnftianity, yea of Natural Religion. Whether this
beanunjufl Cenfure, I refer it to the Reader upon hearing of the
following Account.
His ^Qokagainfi Schifm he publiihed in the Year 1679 When
the Civil Government did not want to have a bad Opinion of the
Nfficonformijis, Therein he attempts to prove not only that the Sepa-
ratifts from Efifcopal Government are Schijyuaticks^ but (r) That
no Prayers made by themfelves, nor by others foi them can find Ac-
ceptance with God, except fuch Prayers as are put up for their Con-
D 2 verfion
• [/jI Difcouri; againft Excemporary Prayer. Iq] Diocefan Epifcopftsy proved from Hoi/ Scriptures,
^.231. f ^,. 2+. (,J chap. XI. Sea. 7.
verddn from theSchifm, and that their Separation is the Sm unt^
Death fpoken of by S. "John i Ep. chap. 5. ver. i6. That, Q) that
dreadfull Text Heb.6.4, 5,6. It is impifihle for thofe that mre
o^ce enlightened -'IS apipliczhk to them. That(^/ they are guilty
ofthe fame Crime, and as real Enemies to Chriit as thefs who
in Terms profeiTed him to^be zn Imfoftor. That Qv) fuch
Separation is a Sin againfi the Holy Ghofi^ and (x) anlnterprera-
tive dlfowning Chrid for our Marter. Nay i^j that it is as Cri-
minal as the Sin ofthe Angells,and {htOldH^orU, and tliQ Sodomites „
^nd the Ifraelites in the Wiickmefb. In a Word, That nothing is
efFeflual to Salvation without being in the E/'/A^/'^/ Communion. I
pole now Mr. jR/;/^^ to findany thing more impious and fcandalous
inSpi^ofa%bodky to which, hefaiesj the Presbjierians xoax^d^iQ M,
Dodwelh,
This, one would have thoiTght, was enough for one Maninhts
whole Life. ButM. O^^W/ did not think fo. The Parliament of
EngUndj confidering the great Danger the Nation was in from Pc^e^
ry ; faw it was neceflary to have better Thoughts ohhe Dip/Jtersj
and to give them more Countenance , than would havefQllowed
uponhis Principies . And therefore fh^rtly after thepublifbingof his
Book,- viz. upon the tenth o( January 1680 the Commons declared by
tht'ir Vote newhecorjtradicente.^ It is the Opinion of this Houfethac
^ the Profecution ofProtfiftant Diffenters upon the Penal Laws isat
* this Time grievous to the Subjed, a u-e^kening thePioteftantln-
* tereft,an Encouragemsn^^t to Fopery, and dangerous to the Peace
* ofthe Kingdom. This was plainly to blali all Hopes of the Fruits
might other wife have been expelled from M. Dodwt^/rs Bock. Where-
fore he makes a /^^r^/^^Attaque, and in the Year 168 j publiflied his
Book of the One PriefihoodjOfie Jltar, wherein heover.agjin attemp-
ted to prove the Noneonfor mitts <Sf^//»2^<f/V^j, and imagining he had
done it, inferrs (-2^) that they can lay no Claim to the (>/^^//-jar
nor tothe Oiie Prie/thood^. iothe Favour, of God here, nor the E/if/tTjf-
ment ofhim hereafter.
It was no Wonder he was thus fevere uron the D/jJenters : For he
proceeded, aod. made the Church of £/?g/4»^ her feif upon the Re^
volutio)$
[ f] Uiap. xm. [fj Ibid. Se6t.i3 1 vj uii^p. XiY , [xj loid. St^^ 2Q. Ty] IbiJ. Sea. ji. [z] Cli*f . Xi;|
Sea. IJh Mr. R hind s Narrative. a^
voliitiort Eftahlifhment SchifmAticd^ and in the Year i704publifh-
ed hAsLatim Book earicled Par^^^fu ai exteros de nupero Schifmate
JngUcAno to advertife Foneigners thereof. What,you'lI fay, was his
Quarrel with [hcRtvolutio/i Church o^ Ejigla^id? Was it her Injuries
to the late K. James ? No. Was it her renouncing the Do6lrines of
PaflTiveObedience and Ncn-Rcfil^ancg o?J ar^y Pretence whatfcever ?
No. Was it thefcandalous new Prayers fhe had put into the L?/«r.
gyl No. Allthefe Things, hQ exprtdy tells us p. y He, with thofe
of hb principles, made a Shi ft to btjar with ; perhaps fo much the
more eafily that, as the Wnterot his L//^tellsus, he had been pro-
claimed a Rebel for not comemg in and takeing Part with the Forces
ofihefaid K. jf/iw^i when they endeavoured to keepPofleffion of
IrMrdm the Year 1689. Wiiat was it then difo'iliged him ? Why the
Bifliops ik/^/^^ was touched, and that was of moreConfideration than
the Kings Crown/ The Nonjuring Bifhops weredifpofTeflcd ; theie
vacant »^f^i, alter much Patience, filled with as good Menasthem-
felves. That was never to be digefled, and therefore he declared
the Ellabiidiment a Schtjm,
This . was a pretty high Flight, and yet he was not at his Pitch.
In ths.Year 1706 He publiflied his KpHoUry DifcQurfe^frovewafrom
the Scriptures And Fiift Fathers, That the '^oul iiaPri'/7ciple naturally mor'
tdi ivheretn is ^rpved^tharnone have the Power of givei?7g the Dtvine im-
mortaliz^ingSpirit^fincethe AfoflUs, hut (?^/j/ //^c- Bifliops. Here was a
very New and furrrizing Scene opened. The Heathens that never
heard of Chrift were nicide happy by it. The worli they had to feat
was, that their Souls fhoukl vanifii into ?/;/> Air. But then fad was
the Cafe ofall6V/?^r,tf///.y from the £/i/f(?;'^j/ Communion : For though
theirSouls were neither by Nature Immortal, nor Imm.ortalized by
Epijcopil Baptifm ; yet,he found a Cue lo have them Immortalized a^u*
Ally by the PleafureofGod loPunijJjment, Was ever fuch horrid Do-
flrine heard of among Chriftians ? However, that Book, though per-
haps the very worft ever faw the Light, had,by accident, one very
goodEffwth For, fuch Ss were before in Danger of being impliciily
carried into his Principles by the Fame ofhis Learning ; when they
fawthat he would force even i[\t^cyiptures and Fathers 10 vouch foi"
tht A at ural Mof'tality of the Soul, veryjufily prefumed, ihathisRea-
fohingsjiom them in ius other Books were to be fufpe£ted. ■
50 KemarJ\f on Chap.^ I;
*Tis now worth the while to fee how Mr. RhM refines on this^
' Tis ivuQy faith he p. 24. M. Dotiwe/lfeemed to have given his Ettem
* wies 2l Handle againft him, by the uncouth Thoughts which he
' vented in his Book of the So///,but this he did in a manner fo learned,
* & {ohx above the Comprehenfion of Ordimfy Readers, ih^t^a/ioiymg his
^ Opinion to have been Erroneous, yet would not manyhQin Hd^
^ ^e;^)'^ of being perverted by it. Withall,! confideredthatmy then
^ Search was not to be employed about that /«/?/'o/frf fingujar Opinion
^ of his ; for what 1 was then Defirous to know, was only, whe-
f ther his Arguments for Epifcopacy were forcible or not?
Here is a Text worth the commenting on. Did M. DodmU
feem only, did he not really give a hmdle not only to his Enemies
but to all the World that had any^egard for Religion ?
But why does M. Rhl^d call k his Book of the Scull Why does
he not call \i\{\s Book for Epifcopdcjl Epifcopacy was the Conclufion
intended, the Mortality of the Soul only a Medium for enforceing
it. Why does he fay it was writ ahije theCompreher^fion of ordinary
Reader si Did he not write it in Englijh ? And is not this a tol-
lerable Prefumption that he defign'd he fhould be underflood ?
Is not the Do6l;rine, to wit,the Mortality oftheSoul^{o Plain that every
Plowman may underliand it. But JM, Rhi»d is right: For the
i\rguments for proveing this DoSrine are aboz'e the Comprehenftor^
not only of ordinary Readers but of extraordinary too, even of all
underflanding. This I am fure of, that the Floribilit) oi the Wills
of Dead Souls f^), feparate Souls receiveing ^Water Baptifm (b)
and the like, are Notions as much above the Capacities of PreS'
hyterians as Jacd l^^/;^2f/2's Lucubrations are. Ihope w^^/^j are not
i« hazard of being perverted hj it. But M. Rhind himfelf is fo un-
happy as to be one, for it is not reail)i but a fuppofed fingular O-
pinion, he will not pofitivly fay it is Erroneous, but allowing it to
be fo, it is not dangerous becaufe of its Obfcurity. But how in all
the World could he fuffer thefe Words to drop from him, ' That
-^ his fearch was not to be employed about that fingular Opinion
* of M. Dodwellhy but 10 know whether his Arguments ibr E-
[ pifcopacy were forcible or not. Is not the natural Mortalttj of the
" 6oulf
SeSt.ni. Mf, Khmd's Narrative. 31
Soul^znd its being immortalized by Epifcopal Baptlfm, or In d€-
fe6t of it, by the Plenfure of God to Punijhment^ one of his Argu-
ments for Epifcopacj ? What meant Mr. Rhi»d by fuch a Jugle,
thinks he M. Do^lweiPs Book is not extant, or that all the World
is turned quite SenCelefs and wants Eyes to read it? I cannot
think that Mr. Rhifid himfelf upon a Review will fay, That he
has ufed the Simerity that would become an expireing Soul.
But to goon with the Hiftory of M. DodwelL As he had pro-
ved the Dif enters and Low-ChxiXohSchifmaticks^ fo the Non^uring
High Church T^r/(r/, wlao continued the Separation after the Death
of the deprived Bifhops, mult, in their Turn, be declared Schifma-
ticks too. For this Purpofehe pubUlheda Book, the laft he wrote,
entitled, The Cafe in Fiew^ fjow in Pacf^ provsing^ that the Qontinuinoe
of 1 fepirated Communwn without Subflitutes^ in anj of the late inva-
lid ly deprived Sees, f^ce the Death of William l-ord Bifhop of
Norwich, /.? Schifmatical. With an Appendix /'row/>^, That our
Ute invalidly deprived Fathers had no Right to j'ubflitute Succefors,
who might legitimate the Separation, after that the Schifm /;^^ bee/t
e&ncluded by the Deceafe of the Lfi Su^viver of thofe fame Fathers, -
Thus, I think, there were very few in En^land^ Epiicopal or
Diflenter, of High Church or Low Church, that were not, fuc-
cefli vely at lea ft, Schifmaticks by M. DodrvsWs Account. Plainly,
his Head was turned with immoderate Zeal, and therefore Sc/?i/;»,
&?^//w, was his eveilafting Clack- Mr. Rhind indeed has given
p. 25 another Chara£\er of him. viz, * That he hasftated the
* Controverfy fairly,thathis Authorities are pertinent and juftly al*
* ledged,and that his Oedu61ions from them and /*// hisother Rea-
' fonings do proceed in a Mathematical Chain. - This Charader I
fhall, adhominem, allow: For, whenever I fhall, find M. DodivdPs
and M. R/^/»a's Reafonings quite contrary ; which I hope not fel-
dom to find in the following sheets, it will necelTary follow ihat
Mr. Rhind is fully anfwered, a Mathematical Chain being more In-
violable than an Ada-mantineon^, So much for M. DodivelL
As for iM. Sage^om /4pologifi'*s other Celebrated Author, all he faies
ofhimisY^.' And in Truth, faith he p. 2 5, 'tis as much as can be -
* faid of any Man, That he thjughc he puiiued the Argument in-
I the.fams. Manner with M. Do dwell and improved upqn it-
" Of
32 RemarJ^ on Chap. Ij
Of this CbaraSer the Famgyyical?2iVt Is Hyperbolical, the ///y?^.'
rical Part falfe. Firft, I fay, the Pa^^egyrical Part viz. That it is
as much as can be faid of any Man^xs Hyperbolical. No Man that
is not blindly Partial will make him a Standard. 'Tistrue he was
Mafter of feveral good Qualities, of a good Capacity and great
Application ; but the Revolution had foured his Temper, which
carried him out often totranfgrefs the Rules of Religion as well as
Decency ; wirnefs his fundamental Charter of Presbytry^ particu-
larly his long Preface prefixed to it, upon the Account of which, I
acknowledge, he deferves the Character of an Incomparable Auihov:
For, he has therein treated his Adverfary after a FalLion, which,
tofay no worfe of it, will not be eafily paialleled. And which
.makes it fo much the more intolerable is, that he did it upon fome
Points of Hiftory,in which his own Friends.(i:) have at laft acknow-
ledged he was miftaken. And how Falfe and Weak his Htftoricat
Argueings were in the faid Charter w^ou the Ulage of the Englifb
Liturgy in Scotland has been iulBciently fhown \ni\\Q Coumry'man\
Letter to the Curat on that Subjed.
'Tis true there is lately publifbed 2i Vindication of the Funda^
Tfiental Charter in Opofition to the faid Letter, But I hope, upon
eompareing the two. The Vindication will appear to be a very harm-
lefs Piece: For i. Who is hkely ever to be moved by an Author
that tells, as that Vindicator does p. 165, ' That it is not Suffici-
* ent Proof, thar a Thing is notjbecaufe the Hiftorians are filent about
•' IXy no, not fuppofe they (bould all contradi8 it. Has that Gentle-
man his Hiiiory by Infpiration? No^ but he would have us to
Judge by liiilories yet to be written, p. 166. p. 15. 2ly, Who
will be moved by his Argueings on Bucha/^an^ when, notwithftand-
jng that Buchanan is acknowledged to be the fole Relater of what
he Argues for, he yet faies, ' That Buchanan was doating when
* he wrote his Hiftory, if it came from his Hands, as we have
^it in sll the Editions hitherto publiOied p. 165. ^ly, Who that
profeiTes, as the Vi/jdica^or does p. 9. to write mrh all pofflbleCanm
iour v./ould fay with him p. 164. that Buchanan ContradiOs him-
R^lf about Art.h'^r'^s Oven^ y/hen no Man ever dealt more candidly
than
{^■) Viadicatioa of ihe raudaaicnul Charter, p .75,,
Sc% III: Mr. KKind's Narrative; 35
than Buchanan has done in that Matter, even though It was of no
.rConfequence, He begins the Civil Hiftory of his Nation at the
fourth Book; there, in the Reign of K. Donald 1, Hefaies, ' That
* Work now called Arthur'^iOven, fomehave falfly related to have
' been the Temple of C/W/«i C4?/^r. We, fofaras wecangue{s,be«
* lieve it to have been the Temple of rfrw/>;///. You fee he: makes
but a Guefs of it. To the Civil Hiftory of his Nation he thought
iit to prefix the Geography of it and an Account of its Antiquity,
and there, like a moft Candid Soul, he retrads his former Guefs
upon better Information, and in the firft Book delivers himfelf
thus. * I indeed was once induced by a Conjefture ( hy this it ap-
* pears, that the Civil Hiftory was written 6f/(?ye /^^ Geographical Part)
^ to believe it to have been the Temple of Tfrw^/^^^, which ( we
' have learned ) ufed to be built Round and open above :
* But then hetdls, that he Was informed by creditable Perfons That
* there were feveral other Buildings of the fame Form in other
^Places of the Nation. This, M^ /'^, forced me to lufpend my
* Opinion — Say now, good Reader, is there any Doating here in *
Buchanan J whQa he is fo watchfull even over his Efcapes in Gue/^ngs?
Is there any cont^^adi6^ion here ? Did not Jugusline writQ two full
Books oi Retra^fions, and one of them too of what he wrote
when he was a'^Bifliop? And does not every Man applaud his
Ingenuity for doing fo? Nay, has not M. Dodwell himfelf retra6t«
ed (J) even in point of Hiftory ? And yet who blames him for
it? ^thly, Who, to avoid the Force of Dr. B/^;';?^/ now Bifhop of
Sarum his Teftimony from the Pulpit before the Houfe of Commons,
concerning what he had feen, and Papers he had bad in his
Hands, would put off the Matter by telling, as the Findicator doQs
p. 36, that the hijjjop is not Infallible, and that all he preached in 1688
tv as not Gofpel, and that he fometimes -preached Extempore? Was not
this amoft Bitter Way of giveing him the Lye, and, which makes
the Treatment ftill the more Rvide, he at the fame Time
declares, that tt were uncivil and uncharitable in him to QueUion the
"Do^o^" s Candour andVeracity, Is this the grave K/«^/V^^i?^ / Is the
World lofar loft, as to take Slynefs ioi Sincerity, and JffeUatmn for
E GrX'
[i] Pui<tHes. Sea. I/, p. 61.
'^^'^ Remarks on Ghap L
Gravity ? i^thly, Who that reads the Di's SermofJ, knows his
CharaOer, or ever heard of his Concernment in the Projedl of-
Comf^eher^fwfi will alledge his Words to be Capable ofany other
Entendre than the Country.m^.n has put on them ? 6thly^ Who would
deny, that the Dr's Teftimony bears, '^ That the Ceremonies
* mifb'd narrowly of being thrown out by an A5i of the Co^voeu
^ tiof?^ when it was carried by the greateft Number of the Voices
* of the Members that were prefent in the lower Houfe that the/
* fliould be laid afide^. And when the Billiops ( who make the up-
per Houfe) were the lams Way afFefted, the Queen's Stifnejs in
mutmahing ?/;^;»,faith the DVj r^ot foivwg from their Cou^jels^ but from
dtfguifedPaftfis\ Will any Man, that defigns not to trifle, deny thai
shis was a narrow Nlifs ? But the f^^t^dicator overlooked the BtfiopJ
in the Dr's Teftimony. jth/y, The Author of the Charter had af=.
nrmed that our Country-man Jlifs was a Member of the £.^^///^
Convocation. The Country- man had proved beyond Contra-
''didion that Jiefs was not a Member. What iaies ihe FwduatortCi
this? It was only an Impropriety of Speech in the AQurRte Author,
Every Man ought to defpair, after fuch an Anfwer, to convince
ih^ Vindicator that it is Light at mid-day. But the Anfwer is
indeed as folid, as the Epithet of Jc urate is Jydicioufly chofenin
that Place.
But I acknowledge all this is a Digreflion from M, Rhi»d'^sBc6k»
I have-, only adduced thefe Inftances to convince the Reader
tliat if the Coantry-man^ who is my good Friend and next. Neigh-
bour, don\^ give himfelf. the Troubleofmakeing any Retur?i loihQ
faid Vindication^ 'tis plain it is, becaufe it needs none. The reading
ovzv , his Letter once more after the Venduation being at once aa
Eafie and Sufficient Anfwer to it. I return then to MvoRhind^
In the fecond Place, his hiHoricaLV^^xt of M. Sage'^s Chara^ier viz- .
ihat h has purfuedthe Argument in the fame Manner with M. Dodwellj
is falfe. M. Dodwell in"ali his Books upon Church Government
ffj aliens the Bifhop's 6W^ Power, and though he is content to give
a Confultorj Pov/er to the Presbyters^ which every Chntiian Man
and ^\
leJSet Diflcrt. Cjpr. Nurnb= 13, i-i, ij. T^rcntf. Sefl. 37. rramouitioa to tie Epiriolarjf iifceurf^ •
Sea. Ill Mr. Rhlnd'> Narrative: 55
and Woman has, it being lawful! to all or any of the People to
lay to Archippus, Take heed to the Minijiry—^^ yet he peremptorly re-
fiifes them a Decretory Power. M. Sage on the other Hand not
cnly denies the faid Sole Power, trat applys himfelf in his Vtndkt^
tiofi of the Primiples oftheCypriankk Age to difprove the Bifhops claim-
ing of it. AA^as this topurjue the Arguwent ajtet the fame Manner ?
That Excellent Perfon M. JAMESON wrote His Qyprianus
Ifotimus in Anfwer to the faid Vindication, And anfwcr it he
did be-yond PofTibility of Reply. M. Sage Himfelf was abundant-
ly Senfible of this, He lived half a Doz.en Years after M. Jamefon's
Book was Publifhed, but never eflayed to make a Return. He
could not but fee how he had miftaken his Meafures and prejudg-
ed the Caufe. And therefore as he could not with any ground of
Reafon, fo, he would nor, ox3t of Love to the Caufe, infift. And I
doubt not but it was very heavy to his Spirit to Survive the Re^
putation of his principal Book; and to think that he fhould have
wafted the precious Lamp of Life in fo voluminous a Work, for
proving that Bifhops did not claim a Sole Power, when not only
his learned Adverfary had proved, beyond Contradidion, that they
did fo, but the moft learned of his own Party allowed, that ic
was Their Right to claiiii it. So much for Mr, BM»^^ Narra-
live.
g| (CHAP.
^g ' Defence 'of thl (2hap. //i
€ H A p. IE
Wherein Mr, R hind 's firjl Reafon for Sefal
rating from the Presbyterian Tarty viz IhaP
They are Schifinaticks in Point of. Govern-,
ment, is Examimd, From P. 29. to P. 1 1^.-
FOR Juftlfieing this Reafon of Separation Mr. RM?^ ufesthe.
^ following Method. Firft. He lays down twQ Primiplss-.
from which he fubfumes fome Corollaries^ adly, He ftateS-
Jhe Debate, and ^dly advances his Arguments.
S E C T. L
Wherein Mr. Rhind's Principles and Corollaries
P. 2 9 J are examined,
HIS tm Vrhciples 2re. P That the Church is but one. TI That
* it is a Society diftintl from and Independent upon the
* State..
Fron> rhe-firft of tbefe Prhdpk^s.nk inferrsthefe twoGorollaries.' I
* That the ordinary Means of Sanation are confined lo the Churcho
* IL That whoever, are withouc ( b\ii moreefpeciriljy they who
^ feparatefrom its Couimumon^ areout. of the ordinary Way of
I Salvation J , ' ^ Fi:ofl^.
(Sed. /• Presbyterian Government] j^
From the Second ofthefe Principles he inferrs thefe three C(?ro//4-
ries, > I That the Chiirch has diftinQ Laws, and a Governmenc and
' Governourscf its own which can ferve all the Purpofes of the
•Society. 11 That that which does properly denonninate one a
* Member of the Church is the Acknowledgement of its Laws
* and Government, and a Submiffion to the Authority of its Go-
' vernours: Nor is the owning any one of thofe enough without
* the other. Ilf. That the Contempt either of its Lawsor Lawful!
* Governours, requiring roTerms of Communion that are truly
' finfull, jjftly deprives oneof the Priviledges of this as well as any
' other Society.
From all this he concludes p^o. 51. ^ That that Society which
* is not only Defective with refpei^ tc that Form of Govern-
* "mentthatobtainMin the DaysofChriftandhis ApOftlesand down-
* wards ( which is undoubtedly theRightfullone^ but does like-
* wife difown and oppofe thofe who govern after that Manner, is
*■ rr/V/zd?/// the Church by the ^^/W Corollary, andconfequently out of
' the ordinary Road to Heaven according to the i'^roW Corollary from
* the/r/? Principle; Arid that the Presbyterians are thus Defective.
in, and difown and oppofe that Government, he is^after ft^teing the
Debate, tomake good by Arguments.
This ishisScheme, but not withftanding its ik/ii^^^w^^/zV^/ Face ; as
it will nor pleafe the Presbjterians^ fo yet far lefs the Church of Er}g'
land which he has joined.
Fisfl-, it will not pleafe the Preshyter'tAns^ as he too confidently
prefumes. For, tbo' they willingly admitthis/^/ Principle, Th.it
the Lhuuliishut one^ and do firmly believe that there is but one Go-
vernment by Dlvim Right viz. the Presbjteriarjj and zealoufly wifll
that it might obtain all the World over ; yet by no Means will they
afiertthat fuch as either oppofeor want that Government are tvzVWr
the Church. TheGovernmeat of many of the P rotefi am Chmxh^s
mGermmy is Superintendency, that oiNewEngU?d Independency,
that of 0/^ E;?^/^;?^ Prelacy. The- Fm/';mi^/?j believe, They are
each of them in an Error, the Ufi efpecially in a Hugely great one ;
And yet they believe them all to be within the Church and capable
of.Salvation,' if they are- oilietwife good Ghr4(liansj And that, as an
Eriglifh Poet has ic forae where. ,
jS^" Defence of the Chap, IL
The God that fr/ dons Sin will far don Errors too.
They own the Road to Heaven is narrow, yettbey don^t believe
it fo narrow, but that they can charitably hope that one Company
may v/alk to it with a Pftsbjterian Minifter on their Head ; and ano-
ther ( tho'not infofiroight a Line) with a B^jhop on theirs. 'Tis
toIdot'Mr. K/^/W (and heallowsusp. 9. toreprefent him to have
been a Presbyterian of the moH rigid JQnd ) that while he was ftudy-
ing Theology 2Li Edinburgh iimong the Presbyterians, \\q mAd^t it 2i
Qiieiiion in a Society of hisFellovv' Students, Whether an Epifcopal
Miniikrdyingin thatOpinioncou'd befaved ? I fuppofe he was the
i^rd Presbyterian ever flarted theQiieftion , and porfibly may be the
lad. But Tome Peoples Brains are figured for Bigotry, on whatever
Side they are. Whether it hQ by Nat»re ov Occident Th^y arsfo, I
referr it to fuchas have Skill in the Mimal Oeconomy.
Secondly,! fay Mr. Rhindh Scheme will yet far lefspleafe the
Church of England which he has joined ; Which I fliall make good
in two particulars; when once I have premiftd, That by the Church
qS England I do not mean only this or the other particular Do^or^ but
that I mean h^v Articles, Homilies, Liturgy^ Canons and fuch other
publick Formula^ s,
Firft. Tho' the Church of £;?^^^;^ thinks Prelacy the befl: Govern*
Oient, yet flie is very far from unchurching thofe that want it. In her
Ninteenth Article fhe defines the i'//?^/^ Church oiQhnd to hQ * a Con-
^ gregation of faithfuil Men,in the which the pure Word of God is
* preached, and the Sacraments be duely adrainiftred according
^ to Chrift's Ordinance, in all thofe things that of NecefPity are re-
* quifite to the fame ? In her twenty third Article She declares, ' That
^ thofe we ought to judge lawfully called and fent which be chofen
^ and called to this Work by Men who have publick Authority gi-
* ven to them, in the Congregation, to call and fend Minifters into
^ the Lord's Vineyard ? In neither of thefe Articles, tho' they v/erc
die only Place fordoing ir, is any one particular Form of Church-
Government declared Neceffary. Nay, the ^r/zV/^^ are conceived ia
fuch general Words on Porpofe, that they might not be thought to ex*
etude other Churches that differ from them infoint of Governments Sofaies
Se^-. I; Presbyterian Gozjermnem. og
the Bii'hop of Sar urn (f) whofe Sufficiency fo underftand the In-
tent of the ^^^/c/t^ wasnsverdoubied, and whofe Concern for the
Epifcopal Caufein Reafon cannot. ' And^adds hf, wharever fome
^ hotter Spirits have thojght of this, fince tint Time ; Vet wc are
' very fure, that not only thol'e who penned the //^t-zc/^/, but the Bo-
' dy of thiyChurch for above half an Age after, did notwithfhnd-
^ ingthofe Irregularities, acknowledge theforreign Churches To
* conftituted, to be true Churches as to ail the KlTentials of a Church.
And p. 260. NeithdY cur Reformers ^nor their Sucajfors for near eighty
l^ears after thofe Articles ^vsre puhlipjed, did ever queltwn the Con [I it ut tort
of fiich Churches . And the Noble Hillorian CLirendon 'j-whowas a^-
bundantly zealous for the Church, reprcfentsit asafalfeScep in the
Government of K. C/;/2r/<?/ I that the ii??!^///l> Ambaffadcur with his
Retinue ieparated fiooi the Proteilant Church at CZ?.iW7/5;7 contrary
to former ufage. Yet further, the Ohnxzh of Enplund was power-
fully attaqued by the Romanifs\n the Days of chelate K. "James -j and
upon the very Came Scheme too which Mr. Rbind hath advanced viz.
Metaphyhcallnferencesfrom the Unity oftheChurch; from whrc^^
they would needs conclude her to be vS/:/;////^/-/^/?/. 'Th^ Engh-flj Oi
vines never made a more noble Appearance than on that Occafion.
They engaged with the RomarjiBs and defeat them totheConvicli-
onof all the World, but then it was by Reafonings which quite over-
turn Mr. Rhind's Scheme. Dr. Sherlock fii ft; enters the Fie]d,and with
open Mouth declares (g) againft the Unchurching Doi^rine for the
want of £p//o-'5/'z2/ Government. '1 am fure, faithhcj that is not a fafe
* Communion where there is not aSuccellion ot Apollolical Do-
^ drine; butwhether the Want ofa SuccelTionof Bifhops, will in
* all Cafes unchurch, will admit of agreuer Difpute : lam
* fure a true Faith in Chrid, with a true Gofpel Convc?i;3tion,
^ will fave Men; And fome learned K(5//Af/^///i defend that old
' Definition of the Church, That iiisC?/r/j Fiddturn^ the^Com-
* panyoftheFaithfull, and v^ill not admit Bifiiops or Pallors into
* the Definition pf a Church. Thus he. DxXtdgg^ci fuccteds him,,
and goes yet mere roundly to Work. He affirms indeed C^v) as
we
[f] Expof. Art. XIII. p.-iyp. f Hid. RcbcII. fg] Vindication of the D.fccurrc CODCerBin^ ihfr Notes
»i ihe Cliurcli p. J3. £hj Upou BcUarmiii'j Vllch N&te oi tkc tliuich.
4^ Depnce oftht Chap. Ih
we do, tlieChurclito be one in manyRefpe^s viz,ofHedd^ Faithy
Bacramems, Service 2iti^ Government too. Butexprefly denys thai any
cfthefe Kjnds etna In jinnee s of \5miy are neceffary to the Being of a Churchy
except theje of o/je Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm, And further a fTerts,
' thatfromthe Apoftles Times till the Council of T^^»^, the conliant
^ Univerfal Do£irine concerning the Church was this, That iris the
* Society of the iaithfull, without ever inferting into the Definition
* of it any Thing relating to its being united to the Pope, or ANY
« OTHER BISHOP as to a vifible Head, lo both thefe you may
.add Mr.Stillmgfleet afterwards Bifliop oUVorceJier, who has proved
,(i) beyond Concradidion that the main Bulk of the Ancient Bifhops
and Divines of the Church o^ England, from the firit Dawning of the
.Reformat iomXmo^ diO"^ n \.o Laud, have exprefly declared againd
.the NecelTity of Epifcopgl Government, and maintained the Muta-
bility of Church Government according to the Will of the Prince or
fCircumftances of the Kingdom ; and herein they \vcTe again fl Mr.
i^/'/Wand his Fellows. And that they havealfo acknowledged tlie
Scripture Identity ofBifliop and Presbyter, averting the Ndmes
,to be interchangeable and the Office the fame. And herein they
were/^y* the Presbyterians.
Secondly. Tins is not the only Qiiarrell the Church o^ Englaff^has
againft Mr. /l/?/>^'s Scheme. No one wonders to find the Presbyte^
y/^;2/ afferting tht Intrinfak Power of the Church. They ftillclaim-.
edit, have been always wreftling for it, to be fure they never re-
nounced it ; but it certainly very ill becomes one who has joined the
Church of £;i)^/^^/^ to lay it down for aPrincipIe, ashehasdone,
that the Church is independent of the State. Iffo, what then means
the 21 -^^^/(r/(; which declares, ' that General Councilsmaynot be
* gathered together vi^ithout the Commandment and Will of Princes?
Arenotthefe neceflary for fervingthe Purpofes of the Society ? The
Church ifidtpendent cf ihe ^tate ! What then means the ^'j Article
which declares ' the Queen's Ma jefty to havetheChief Fov^ er and
' Government ofallBliates whether Ecclefiafiical or Civil and in all
' Caufes? The Church independent of the Statel What then means the
firItO/?(3;^ 1640 concerning the Regal Power, wherein the King's Su-
premacy
IQ Irciiic. Pan II chap. VIII.
Scdt. L Presbyterian Government^ ^i
premacy over the Ecclefiaftical State and in Caufes Ecclefiaftical is
not only afTerted but argued for ; And the Government of the Church
declared to belong i» Chief unto Kings, and that the Power to
call and dilTolve Councils both National and Provincial is the /r«e
i^/g//^ of all Chriftian Kings within their own Realms and Territo-
ries, and that when inthefirft Times Of Chrift's Church Prelats
ufed this Power, it was therefore only becaufe in thofe Days They
had no Chriftian Kings. The Church I'^depndent of the State ! What
then means the firft Canon 1605 thevery Ka^mX' whereof is, The
Kjn^i Supemncy over the Church of England, in Caufes Ecctefiafiical to be
maintain'- d! The Church Independent of the State ! What then meant
the Bifhop of Nonvich Anno 1709 in his Vifitation Charge to
fpend a good Part of his Difcourfe and a large Appendix in cau-
tioning his Clergy againfl: that Principle? Say now, good Read-
er, if Mr. R/'/W has not been competently furnifhed with AfTu-
ranee when he declared p, 29 His Principles and Corollaries
to he Truths fo evident, that he thought it needlefs to enlarge on
them. Had he intended only a Difpute againfl: the Presbyterians
he might indeed have afTumed the Independency of the Church {oz
a Principle : But when he was to tell the World what
fatisfied his own Confcience, and determin'd him to go over
to the Church of England, which in the moftfolemn Man-
ner has renounced that Principle, the infifting on it was one
of the greateft Inconfiftencies a Man could be guihy of.
I fhall conclude this Difcourfe upon his Scheme with one Ob-
fervation, Mr. Rhind would needs have the Presbyterians to be
Schifmaticks, and thence inferrs That they are without the Church.
But this is horridly talfe Reafoning : For, I affirm Thar, if they
HYQ Schiffnaticksy then it will follow that they are iwV////? the Church.
I know this will be furprizing at firfl: to fome Readers, yet it is
certainly true. The Romanifts,i(] the Days of the late K.JameSy
reafoned, exadly after the fame Manner with Mr. Rhind, againfl;
the Church of England: But that great Author before mentioned,
I mean Dr. Sherlock demonftrates that pretended Reafoning to be
flat Nonfeflfe, and his Woids will abundantly clear my Aflertion.
F * A
42? Defence of the: Ghap. Hi
« A Schtfmitkd Chutch, faith fje, (k) (Ignlfies a Church too, and
* hovy they are a Church without belonging to the o^e Church,
* when there is but o/?g Church, is fomewhat Myfterious. And
* therefore Schifm \s not tearing off a Part of the Church, but
* one Part dividing from the other in external Communion^ which
^ fuppofes that both Parts ftill belong to the fame Church, or elfe
^ the Church is not div'dcd.- For J/?^/.:fjand Schifm are two
^ different Things; y//?oy?4/fj ceafe tobe ofthe QhviiQh^SchtfmatJcks
^ are of the Church ftill, though they difturb the Peace of the
^ Church and divide the external Communion of it — . Does Sr.
* FW, who reproves KhQCormthtAmiot their Schifms, fliut them
* out of the Church for them too? Does He deny rhem tobdong
' to the Church, when He directs His Epiftle to the Church of Goi
* at Corinth. Thus he. So very loofly knit is Mr. Rhi»ci*s Scheme,
that the one Part of it deftroys the other. And if he can prove
the Presbyterians Schifmaticks, eo ipfo it will follow, that they are
not without the Church. Dr. Sherlock'^s Reafoningis Plain, Strong,,
palpable Senfe, againfl: which Mr. Dodwe/Ps ufual Stils, though
founded upon fome loofe expreflionsof the Fathers, will never bear
out Mr. R^/W. Nor is Mr. R^/W altogether a Loafer by this
Obferve: For whereas he hints in his Preface^ that he has beea
upbraided with Jpo/Iacyhy fome; though I am as well affur'd he
is a Schifmatick^ as I am, that there is fuch a Sin as Schijm ; yer^
upon the former Reafoning,he ought not to be called an Jpojlate^
lilJ hs declare himfelf a little more Explicitly. I hope then he will
digeft the Obfervation the more eafily, that what he loofes by it
in. Argument, he faves. in Charader. i .
SECT^;
(\,)Vhx fupra p. z^. .i^, .
^Sesfl. 7Z Vrcsbytaim Governmentl .^
S E C T, II.
'Wherein Mr. Rhind*^/ State of the Debate he''-
tmxt the Presbyterians W EpifcopalianSj P.
51, 32^ is Examined-
THE Stateing of a Debate aright is always a principal Point
in Controverfy. Take it in Mr. Rhmd''s own Words.
'^;It isfufficient to anfwer my Defign in this fliort Jpology^ if Icaa
*^ prove that the Government of the Church, from the Beginning,
^ was managed by Officers of different Orders, and fuch as afted
'• in Capacities, fuperior the one to the other ; among whom ther«
' were neither Ruling Elders, nor Deacons, fuch as the Preshjte'
^ ria-^s have. This, faith he^ is all that the Epifcopal Writers
* plead for. And therefore he thinks it medlefs to Aeterminemore ex"
jilicttlj^what are the di^linguijhing Chara^iteriflicks of the fever al Of*
fcers, or to fx the Bounds of their RefpBive Powers, Thus he. Now;
let us Remark a little upon it.
I. Why does he State the Debate upon a Subordination of Of
fcers? Was there ever Presbyterian denied, that there fhould be
a Subordination among the Oficers as well as Judicatories of the
Church? Do not they own Chrift to be the Chief Sheepherd, the
abfolute King and Monarch of the Church? Don't They own Pre»
sb)ter\\s to be under him, Deacons under both ? Is not here a fair
Subordination of Officers? If he had fiated the Debate upon a Sub-
ordination or Imparity o^Paliorsot Ai^^//?^rj,takeingthefe Words
in their Current Ecclefiaftical Senfe, it had been to the Purpofe;
but to State it upon a Subordination or Imparity 0^ Rultrs 01: Of
fcers was to lay a Foundation to himfelf for Chicane.
Poffibly he may think to ward off this Remark by what he has
F 2 added,
14^4 Defence of the Chap^ IT;
added, That amofig theft Subordmdte Officers^ there mre neither Ruling-
Elders nor Deacons fuch as the VtQsbytevidins have. This, I acknow-
ledge, when proved j will be a confiderable Point gained againil
the Presbyterians. But then imo. Why has he not.reftriQedhimv
lelf to the Proof of this ? For, in all his State of the Debate^ there
is not one Syllable more to the Purpofe ; and yet of the 90 Pages
he has fpent in the Profecution of it, he has employed only five
of them, and thefetweonly by the by, again ft the Ruling Elders
zr\A Deasons^ With what Succefs we. fliall afterward hear. 2do.
When he has proved, which yet I defpair of finding ^onQ^that am
tnong thefe 'Subordinate- Officers, there were neither Ruling Elders nor
Deacons fuch as the Presbyterians have, it will indeed follow that
\hQ?resbyierianSi^XQ miftaken in the Gharaders and'Fundions of
their Subordinate Officers, But by no means will it follow That ^.
they are againft a Subordination of 0#cf;'/. On the Contrary,
Mr. Rhind^s Difputing againft the Presbyterian Ruling ^ Eiders und .
Deacons proves irrefragably, that they are /or a Subordination of.
Officers. I defne every Reader of Mr. Rhind*s Book to attend .
carefully to this, and they will fee there is no more needfull for
difcovering the UfelelTnefs of all his Arguments for a Subordinati- >
on of Officers, xhQ Presbyterians h^mg as much for it as the Prela^
tills are; and that his latter Part of the Debate is a moft cffedual
Confutation of the former.
II. Why does he fay, That a Subordination oWfficers, without;
{uch Ruling Elders and Deac&ns as the. Presbyterians have, /V upon .
the Main all that the Epifcopal Writers f lead for f Of all Tilings in.
the World unfincere ' Dealing is the moft Odious. Certainly he has .
taken it for a Principle, That none who W4is to read his Book had
ever read the. Epifcopal Writers, or would ever be Capable of.
reading them. Is he yet to learn. That the fole Power is pleaded .
for by them? Haveing read fo many Books of that Side, can his
Judgement be fo weak as not to have difcemed, or his Memory
fo frail, as to have forgot^ that all the Elevations of an abfolute.
Monarch accountable to God only are pleaded for by them ? Iffo, .
Care fball be taken ere I. have, done to clear up his .Difcernment^
andjefrei]! bis Memory, . Does he, Imagine, that, a SubcrdiMatioi^K
aad/^/ftPpweLare all- one,? ; Of. ^ill.d^m^u.JiuharAinmQn >wiih»..
Se£t. II. VvQshytcmnGovemmentl ^{.5
oufcPresbyterian Elders or D^<2fo;7j pleafe him ? If fo, he is too well
natured: For, alas, it will not pleafe his Brethren. To Humour
him a little, I fhall fuppofe the Presi?jteria»s content to accept of
Conftant Moderators for Term of Life, and that fuch Moderators
have i\\t. Preftdemj in all their Affemblies : Bnt would that lave
them from the Guilt of 5c/;//»; ? Mr. Dodwell has exprcfly faid
it will not. Hear him (ly ' This ( a Vrimifleof Vnity ) none of
* our Modern Se8s, execepc the Presbyteriansr can ifo much as
* offer at. None of them (the other Moder/j SeSls) h^iVQ any fmglQ^-
' Minifter, whoby their Principles can pretend to Superiority over
' his Brethren.- And all that they (ihe Presbyterians) q^u \it&'
* tend is a Moderator over their ClafTes, either for a certain Time
* or at the utmofl: for Term of Life* Yet even that is not Suf-
' fkient for a Principal of Unity. Seeing the Sacrifices are they
* which are- the. Cement of this Unity, it muft be a Prefidency, -
* not in their AlTemblies only but their Sacrifices, which can en-
* title to aPrincipIe.of it;;Thus M. DodwelL And what now would
it fignifie though Presbyterians fhbuld grant all that Subordina-
tion which Mr. Rhind pleads for, when notwitbftanding, They
muft ftill remain Schifmatickshy M. Do^tK^/i'sVerditl.
Ill* Why did he think if nee die fs to^^et ermine more explicitly thefeve-''
ralCharaC^erifiicks of the fever al Officers and to fix the Bounds of their
Refpe^iv'e Powers ? About what, I pray, is all theControverfy be-
twixt Prelatijls and Presbyterians ? Is it about the Title o^Bifljop ? 'Tis
yielded on both Hands to be a Scriptural one. Is itwhether there
pjouldhQ Bifbops in the Church? The Presbyterian was never yet
created who denied it. Is it that ihefe Bijbops fhould have Oj^^c^r/
fubordinate to them ? The Presbyterians loudly afTert it. Is it not
then theControverfy about the Char aSierisit^ts and Powers of Bifhops^
wherein the Choak lyes ? And yet Mr. Rhind riiinks it needlefs tp
determine them more explicitly. If fo, tis Very plain he fhould have
thought it needlefs to have written his Book. If the Prelatifis can
prove^. that Bifhops by Divine Right fhould be abfolute Monarchs ; or,
to. come lower, that they fhould have a Negative Voko
finaple or even Reciprocal ; If they can prove, « that by Ptvine Right
they.
C] One Priefttiwd. Chap. XIII. SeO. 13. p. 35$,
46 Defence of the Chap^ Ih
they have the fole Power of Ordh^iion and ^uriscii^ion or
either of them. If they can prove, thsLt by Div we Right they
fliould have fomeH/yW/'f^j or even Scores of Congregations under
their Infpe6^ ion ; Presbjtertdns are heartily content to yield the
Caufe, and to accepi of B//Z't?/'i with all thefe Powers or /^ many
of them as they fhall prove of 0/V/>^ R/g^f to belong to them.
On the other Hand, if the PreiatiHs are content with Bi/hops that
are neither /?^/(3/«/^ Mo/jarchs, nor have a Negative Voice, t\q>x fole
Power, nor a greater Charge than they can perfonally infpe6l, that
is, preach and difpenfe the Sacraments to, with the Afliftance
of Elders tooveifeethe Manners of the People, ( and of Deacons to
lake Care of the Poor ) and that Difcipline may be duly exercifed ;
the Vreshyterh?iso^K^\ to prove that they have iuch B/Jhops already,
or are content to take them where they have not. Is it poflTible
fairer Conditions can be either demanded or offered ? Why then
did Mr. Rbwd decline to explain himfelf ? The Reafon is obvious,
He defigned to harangue a while, anddifputing would have mar-
ried the Cadency of his Periods.
IV. SuppofmgMr. P/'z/^^'^s State of the Debate had been more
Diftinft than it is, it would anfwer only the one Half of his
Undertaking in the T/V/^P^^^. For tho' it might be a Reafon for
..Hisfeparaiir'g from the Fresbyterians^ yet it would be none for His
emhrAc'tng theCommunion of the Church according to hisprefent Pra*
^Hce, unlcfs hehad proved that the Subordination of Officers in the
Church of £»^/4;?^ Conftitution, into which he is gone, were of
Vivine Inftitution ; Which he has not fo much as attempted to prove,
I add nor can be proved. For, that Prmais or Jrch BifJjops havc'ing
a Power over and being O/fl'/^^r/Vi to the other B/fiopSy that Bifiops
cxerceing a«Sc?/fPowerorevena zV^^4//w Voice, that Presbyters fer-
ving as the Bifhop's Of'/t'^g^r^/ without Power oWrdwation ov Jurist
di5t ion, thdit Preaching Desconsv^^^d. with a lower of Baptizing, but
deprived of all Manadgemxnt of the Churches Stock or Care of the
Poor, which was the Original Defign of Their Office; that, I
fay, all ox any oftheCe Officers confidered under thele peculiar
CharaiEiers, are the Creatures of God, or of i^m/?^Inrtitution, I
pofitivly deny, and want to be direded to any Author that has
proven h.
So much for Mr. Rhind^s Way of ftateing the Debate ; And, I be-
lieve.
SeA. IL Presbyterian Government, 47
Tieve, 'us obvious toevery Body, that thereby he has proje^ed for
his ow^n Eafe rather than the Readet's Convidion. For, let one, in
peruleing his Book, dafhoutths Word Officers or R/y /ere, an Impa-
rity or Subordination among which the Presbyterians grant, and
fubflitute in Place thereof the Word Pajlorscv Mimfters, a Parity
among whom was his Bufinefs to difprove ; and it willprerently
appear that feveral of his Arguments are Jul! as much to the Fur-
pofe, as an Ode oi Horace would have been.
But there is no need of running into Niceties in this Matter.
Eveiy Body has a tolerable Notion in the Grofs what is meant by
Prelacy and Preshytry, If Mr. /^toA Arguments prove, that the /^r-
ter is a Schlfmattcd kind of Government, the former that which
jhouU obtain in the Church, I lliall grant he has gained his Point,
\i they prove not that, 'tis nothing to us what elfe they prove.
And whether they do fo or not, I am now to apply my Self to
try.
S E C T. III.
WhnemMf\^\\m\^s Arguments for VKkcy^
are fummed up.
HE has cafl: his Arguments into the Form of a Harangue \ but
fo far as I can diftingiufh them they amount to the Num*
ber of M>;^. The three fir ft of which are calculate to argue \\\'\t
Prelacy fjouU have been inftituted ; the fix latter to /rczr that it
actually was inftituted. :
Fir ft That it was necefary that Prelacy /W/^fae inftituted, he
I. Froni
kiii)..
^S Defence of tie Chaip.' I/j
I. From the Nature of the Thing which made itlndifpenfibly
neceflary in it felf. A Monarchical or Subordinate Form being
able to anfwer the Ends of Government better than the ConrraryJ
II. From the Form of Government in the jf^iwyZ^ Church, fee*^
ing God muft he uniform in his Agings.
III. From "the gorni -tlie Rules of poUtical Prudence, feeing a
levelling Form of Government would have been diftaftfull both
to the Jews and Romans^ as being Oppofite to the Hierarchy of the
former, and Monarchy of the latter.
Secondly That it actually was inftituted, he attempts to prove.'
I. From its obtaining in the Days of Chrift, as appears from
the Subordination of the LXX to the Tmlve.
II. From its being continued in the Days of the Apoftles, as
^appears from the Hiftory of their A^s, and their EpiJlUs, and a
Succdlion in the Apoftolate.
JII. From the Epifcopacy of Timothy Sitid Tif us,
IV. From the Apocalyptick Angels.
V. From TeiT;imonies of Antiquity.
VI. From the Impoflibility of its Obtaining fo early and unS
verfally, if it had not been of Divine Inftitution.
Ail thefe ( befides what he has advanced againft the Presbytc*
mn Ruling Elders and Deacons j I Ihall examins in Order.
SECT. IV:
Wherein Mr. Rhind'.f Arguings for froveing^
that it was Necejfary that the Prelatic^ Form
of Government iliould have been atfirji Injii^
tuted is Examined^ From P. 3 2. to F. 4^.
I
Have jufl: now obferved that he attempts this by three ArgumentsJ
which I fliall examine in fo piany Articles, Let me only
onc^
Std. IF. Vresbytcxkn Cover nmenf. 49
bnce more advertlfe the Reader, that Mr. Rhifid^ exprefling
himfelf in this Controverfy by a •5)«^£'/'^/»^/e Form of Government
on the one Hand, and a leveling Form of Government on the o-
tiier, with fuch hke Phrafes, is a very Ridiculous as well as un^
juft Stile : For, the Presbyterians are againH a Levelling^ they are
for a SubordifiAte Form of Government,yea, they are for a Monarchical
Form of Government, underftandingour Lord to be that Monarch ;
as Mr. Rhind Himfelf does p. 49. Though then Mr. K/;/W found
it neceffary for amufing his Reader and filling his P^^^ j to ufe fuch
Forms of Speaking as a Monarchical or Subordinate^ a Republican or
Levelling Form ot Government; yetlmuft either negled his Ar-
guments altogerher, as (ignifieing nothing in this Controverfy, or
elfe I mult plainly underftand by thefe and the like Phrafes Pre*
iac^ or Prtibytry refpetiively, as common Ufage has fixed the
Notion of them in this Controverfy. Thispremifed I now pto-
ceed»
ARTICLE I.
Wherein Mr. R hind'j* Argument, for the Indif-
penfibk NeceJJity of Injlituting Prelacy;^ from
the Nature of the Thing is examined^ From
V. ^2. to P. 39»
THE Summ of his Argument Is this. God could not but inftltute
the Bef Form of Government for his Church. A Govern-
ment of a Monarchical or Subordmate Form is /uch, that is, it
cm anfwer the Defigns of Society better than an/ other, There-
G fore
^di Defence of the. Chap^ IL
fore tlie Church ought to have that Form of Government, that isto^
Uy, Prelacy, Now let us confider this, and
I.' I affirm this Way o£ Arguing labours under thee very-
confiderable Infirmities. Firfi, It is not Modsji, Secondly, uoifecure.
Thirdly, Suppofe it were both ; yet, as he has laid it, it is quite /w*
fminent, and does not in the leaft affe£l the Preshjteriam,
Firfl, It is not Modeft, Does it become the Creature to prefcribe
to , God ? Is it fufferable that one Oiould talk at Mr. Rhi^d^s Rate,
That (uch a Form of Government, abltrading from and antecedent-
ly to the Divim- Eftablifhmenr, OVGHT to be, MV^T be, is //;-
difpnfibly Necejfary in it felt, that it does not look like God that it
fhould be oiherwife^all which are his Phrafes? Is not this to fet
Bounds to : God's - Wifdom and Will ? I mutt needs read
a, Ledurc to Mr. Rhi^d from the judicious Hooker (m) to teach
him more Reverence towards God. ' As for thofe marvellous Dif-
* courfes, whereby they adventare to argue that God muB needs
' have done the Thing which they itfi<i.gi>n was to be done, I'mii/t
* confefs, I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnefs
*^ hereiq. ^ When the Qpeftion is, whether God have deliver,
* ed m Scripture ( as they affirm he hath) a compleat jm*-
" ticular, immutable Form of Church Polity; why take they tfiac
< other hoili prefumpturas ^n^Juperfluous Labour to prpve BqjIjouU
* have done it, there being 7?a Way in this Cafe to prove the
*Deed of God, faveing ofily by produceing thn Evidence where-
' in he hath done it.- -- When w^e do other wife, furely weedcceed
* our Bounds; who and w-here we are we forger. And thei-e-
^ fore needfuU it is that our Pride in fuch Caies be controuled,
'and our Difputes beaten back, with thofe Demands of the Blef-
^ fed Apoflle, Horvunfetrchdk ate hisjucigr^er^ts, and his J'fays pafi
* -findipg out? Who hath krJOivB the Mtfid of tf/e Lo^d^ or rvhorvashis •
*iCou»/cllor? ' — » In Matters which concern tlie A^'3io^s of God
* the wi^y? dutifull Way on our Partis to ieirch v/hat God hatfj ^
* done and with Meekaeis to admire that, .rather than to Difpute
* -what he in Cougruity .of Reafon ought to do. , Fm fu; s it is Mr. .
J^/?/>>a's .Duty to chew the Cud a while on this, ,
Secondly, h is not Secure o Furj Cifcumllances may make thai:
*T.i-' I . . I ' '"!- -.-I — .Mill! —H— i— lllll I lll.l . .
|j«] Ecdesj PoUc-.S. .liI.,5eft,.XA. p. ija. j;;, ■
Sc^, IF; Presbyterian Government 51
if/? in one Cafe, which would not be fo In another. Hear M.
Do^tvell(n) wlio will clear the Matter. ' The Way of Arguing
* from the a&:ual Efiabltfljments oWod, as it is much more Modeft^
■f fo it is alfo much more Secure for finding out the Right of Go-
f vernmem than any Conjethtrts we can make from the Reafon of
f the Thing. It is certainly the molt becoming Courfe for a ikfo-
* defi ChriHian in all Things to acquiefcein God''s 'judgment y\\ow
^ great Evidence foever there might feem for differing from it.-*—
f The Reafofjs from the Nature oi Government m General , and ^Q-
* culiarly of Government as Ecclefiafiica/^ are not proper to any one
f Age, But for bringing thefe Reafonings down to determine the
* Rights of any particular Government, many particular Matters of
f FaB avQ requifke to be known. Thus he.
Thirdly. His Argument, as he has laid it is c[miQJmpertinent,2i^di
doesnot in the leaftafFe(3 the Presbyterians : For he adduces it to
prove that there fhould be a Subordination of Officers in the Church,
;which the Presbyterians are for, as well as he.
II. Suppofeing his Argument were otherwife tolerable, Hotv
floes he prove that a Monarchical or Subordii^mte Form of Govern-
ment is the beli ? Why ,waveing the many Arguments of fever allearn'
ed Authors he will needs advance three of his own. The firft is
taken from the Britffb Monarchy, The fecond from the Principles.
J'he third from the f^raclices ohho ?resb)terians Themfelves.
1 he firft from the Britijh Monarchy flands thus. All the Sub-
)qE\s of Britain muft own Monarchy to be the befi: Form of Go-
vernment for the State ; and therefore he fees no Reafon from tho .
, Nature of the Thing why it fliould not be reckoned fuch for the Church
alfo. Nay that it looks not like God it fliould be other wile p. ^^.
But this isas unhappy an Argument as Mr. i^/;/W could have pitched
on. For imo. Unlefs he could prove ( perhaps Dr. Lesfly may
help him to it J that Monarchy is the only Government by divine
Right for the State, and that all the Nations of the World who
are under any other kind of Government, are, on that Account,
in a State of Mortal Sin,his Argument murt do a great deaf more
Hurt than Good to the Epifcopul Caufe. For it will plainly follow
G 2 that
C6J Oa Schifm Cliap. XIX. Ssdi. 35. ^o. p. ^s^, 4.J/.
5'?; Defence of the CHap. It
that fuch Nations as have an AriHrocrathal oxDemccratkd Form of
Government in the State^ andareperfwaded it is beH, fhould have
the hkein the Church too. The BritijJj Subje8s are indeed per-
fwaded that Monarchy is the heft Government for Britxin, and^
I believe, will always be of this Mind, while fo Benign a Princefsas
Her Majefly fills the Throne ; but thefe fame Perfons are not per-
fwaded -that it would be the ^^/Z for xX^^Vmted. ?YQvinces,\\i^KQi
publicks Q^ Venice^ GenoA^ Lucca^ the Swifs Cmtom^ Gemva^^Zy
and confequentiy, they muft be perfwaded too, according to Mr;.
Rhma's Way of Reafoning, that a Monarchical Government in thei
Churchwould not be befl: forthem. His Argument then would quite al-*
ter its Nature by a Voyage, and from being a good onQfor EpiP
copacy at Home, would become a good one againH it beyond Sea;
ido. Is it not pretty odd to find one Vihoh^s read ihd Bible all
over, as Mr. RhM faith he has done, and has heard our ^avioup
not only dec-Iareing that His Kjngdom is -not of this IVoyld^butey^-
prefly difcharging his Difciples to exercife fuch Dominion and Au*
thort4y as the Princes of the Gentiles do^ Is it not odd, I fay, to find
fuch a one urgeing the Cutting the Church Government by the
Pattern of the 5^^/^? Does he not know that i-t was the Fancy of
Modelling the external Government of the Church according to the
Civil Government of the Roman Empire that brought in fuch Of-
ficers to the Church, of whom tlicre isjuft as much Mention in the
Scripture, as there is of the Prefent Emperour o^Morrocco oxCzttr
Qii MuJcG^oj (<?), I referr it then to the Reader to Judge, if that
can be a good Argument for determining the Government of the
Church, which was thegreated: Caufeofher Corruption, yo. As
y^iX.Rhind has laid the Bm//I? Monarchy in theoive Scale, fo he
mufl allow me to layfomelnifancesin theother, and let the Reader
weigh both.- The Romans^ who were the greateftMafiersofcm/
Prudence ever the World knew, when once they had expelled the
Tarquiiis and ^ho\'{(hQd Repal Government, though they ufed
fometimes Arifocracy, {omtivvcizs Dernocracj or a Forna nnxt of both,
yet were never ioidle or ill advifed as to think ot fetiing up Mo-
narchy again tiilUturpets and Tyrants, oppreiled them,' and by*
maia •
£o] Sec .Pi. CrfVf Pj:.i*it. Uuift. Pau.l. Chap..VIII.;p. a^^.
Sed. IV. Prcsbytcmn Government, 55
main Force wrung tlieir Liberties out of their Hands. Lycuygus and
6W(?/^wer€ the wifeft Men of their Age by the VerdiQ of all the
Worldj^ yet they fet up, i\\Q On^ Arifiosracy^ the other Democracy^
and recommended them forever to their People. Plato and AriTtotle
areNames will be ever had in Veseration, yetthey had but very
indifferent Thoughts of Monarchy becaufeof its Liablenefs to degc-
nercite into Tyranny. And that which makes the Britipj Monarchy
fo deHreable is that the two Routes of Parliament qualifie ir, and
give it a Mixture bo:h of Jr/f^ocracyznd Democracy, Whereas the
jP;'f/.'i^; contended for by its late Patrons, is a downright Tyranny,
a Monarchy after the French Form, none daring to fay to the Bi-
iho^,\vhat doefi thou ? as we fhall hear afterward . 4/0. Is it not ftrange
that the Church of EngUfiei Divines ( Dr. Wbitaker^ for Inllance,
Regius Prop fior oiDivimiy \n Cambridge ) when difpoting againft
the Church oi Rome fhould argue Ag&inH a Monarchical Govern-
ment in the Church ; and yet that Mr. K/;/W, whoprerends to be
of that Communion, fliould argue/^r it when difi uting againft the
Presbyter uns} I want mightily to be fatisfied about his Cond ad in
this, -
His Second Argument from the Prhcipies ohht Presbyterians runs
thus p. 54. / ivou^d know of them ^ rvhytheyarefora Subordifiation of
Judicatories, while they are atthejame Time againfi an Imparity of RU'
lers ? Really tlie Presbyterians own themfelves fo dull, as not to be
able to give a Reafon for that which is not. Lee Mr. R/;/W once
prove ?tothey areagainftan Imparity of Rulers^ and then it will be
loon enough to give a Reafon tvhy they are fo ; For they are not dif-
pofed to philofophize on the Golden Tooth. He never fufpeded that
his Helium wanted Trutlr, and therefore he goeson very innocently
in his Harangue thus. ' To whatPurpofe, Iwou'd askihem, ferves
' a Subordination of Judicatories, where the Judges are fuppofed
' to be ftill the fame ? Did Mr. Rhind never hear th^c ^It^svident Oculi
quam Oculus^ Tivo Eyes /ee better t ban One '^. Does he not know
that all the Apoftles were Equal in their Apoflolical Character, and
when the Controverfy about Circumcifwn was flartedat Antioch ACis^
154 Doubtlefs Paul,, being under an infallible Condudl, could have
determined it as Orthodoxly as the whole College of 'em ; yet, for
faciifieiog Peoples Minds, it was judged expedient that the Adv'ice
of
54 Defence of the Chap^ II
of the reft flhould be had, and their Authority interpofed. Obui
faith he. In the Vreshyterian Subordimtion the "Judges are Hill the^^
fmie. Now, what could put this in his Head, or how he could pof-
fibly ftumbleintoit, 1 cannot conjecture. Was he fo long among
the ^resbyteYhns2cci^ does not know it to be falfe ? Could he meet
with never one in the whole Country to tell him it was fo? When
I'm fure there are very few in the Nation but could have done it.
All Matters that come from a Subordinate to a Soperiour Judicatory
are tranfmitted either byway q{ Reference ox Af fed. In the firft of
thefe Cafes the Judges "SiX^ notmeerly the/^w^, but a vail Plurality
added to them, forlnftance, when a yidxi^x h Rf erred fromaP/^j-
hytryiozSynod^ the whole Minifters of the Province with a Ruling
Elder from each Parifh are Judges in the latter: Whereas in the for-
fir.er, only the Minifters of that particular Fresbytry with one Ru-
ling Elder from*each of its Parifhes were the Judges. In the Cafe
of Appeals, not one Member of the Inferior judicatory is admitted to
;be a Judge in the Superior. They are indeed allowed to plead, but
.|be pleading being over, they are not allowed to advife much lefs to
"vote in the Frocefs. The Ufe then of a Subordination of Judicatories
is obvious, to wit, that the Superior may redifie the Miftakes&c
ofthe Inferiour. But this will not go down with Mr. Rhwd: For
f hQ Q^nnQt under Jl an dhow their Fellow Members ( to ivhom they
are fuppafed in all Refpefts tqual) /ball judge better thf.}» they. I know
no Body obliged tofind him inVnderftanding, The Thing is abun-
dantly Intelligible in its felf, Solomon a wife enough Mafter haveing
told us, that In Multitude of Counfellors there is Safety, But whence
did Mr. Rhind learn that all the Members of a Presbyterian Judicato
ii'ie were to be fuppofed in all Refpe5is Equal? Was it from the Preshym
Iberians ? Surely not. They willingly own, that all the MinifterSp for
Inftance, in one Fresbytry are not Equal in ^//Refpeds. One of
;them is more Lf^r^^^than another. Another perhaps, tho' he hath
TiOt fo much Learning, is yet Wifer,{ox thegreateft Clerks are not al-
•v/ays the Wifeft Men . Was it from his Fellow Writers of the Epifco^
^.-zi Side? No. On the contrary, They plainly declare, that the
Fresbjterians neither plead nor fuppofe any fuch I'hing. Thus the
Author ohhQ Sei'e/zth Book of Hooker^sEcchfiaUical Volity *Se£t ^d.
i Jhoy Jdthhe^ which cannot brook the Superiority which Bilbops
hav©
Sed:. IF. Presbyterian Government] 55
* have, do notwitliftandingthemfelves admit that fome Kind of Dif*
* ference and biequaltty there may be lawfully amongftMiniflers.
*- Imquality as tooching Gifts and Graces they grant, becaufethis is
^ fo plain that no Mifl in the World can be caft before Men's Eyesfo
* thick, but they needs muft difcern through it, that one Mini-
* fter of the Gofpel may be more Learned, Holier and Wifer; better
* al.leio inftruri, more apt to rule and guide than another? Let
Mr. /^te^ then fay athisbellLeifure,whencehe got ihd^iJufpoftAE-
qadity in all RefpeUs,
His Third Argument is taken from theFra£lices of the VreshjteriaHs
«lhemfelves, The Sum of which in his own Words p. 35. is. That,
^though by their Principles all Church OlBcers are allowed an equal
' Authority , yet inEfFed the whole,or at leafttheChief Power is in the
^ Hands of a FeWj who are the moft knowing and. Wife. And for
* ptocfofthls he brings an Inflance, how that in threw; fcveral General Af-
/ femblics, though the moll: numerous Party in the Aff^-mUj were
* earneit to hive the mtrmfick Power of tliQ Churc!va{Ieat-:d by an AUfy
* yet ihQ. Authority of a leading 'Jt^nto, who were i^fon the matter fo
' many Bifliops, crufl^ed that Dangerous Affair. • Why then, faith he
* p. 57. do they oppofe that kind of Government, v/hich is not only
' indifpenubly nccelTary in it felf,but does in defpite of their Principles
^ adually ohraia among themfelves. Thus he. In Anfwer to which. •
How lucky fo ever Mr. PJnnd may be in fome of his Mir/ats^ yet
perhaps he is the moft unlmky in his Arguments ever Man was .-They
being generally fo ill natured as to cut their own Throat. For \7no.
who told him that it isagainlt Presbyterim Principles, that one Mini-
fter fliould have a greiter Hand inmanageing affairs than another ?
Net the Presbyie''ia,r.^i\\c:y refufeit. Not his Brethren the Authors on
the £/'-?A^/'4/ Side ; Vv^jtncfs him laft cited who tells us (^Ibid, ) ' A
* Priority oiO.d-r they deny not but that there maybe, yea fuch a
* Priority asm^keihone Man amongft many a Principal A(Slor in
* thofe Things whereunto fundry of them muH: neceffarily concurr,
* fo that Uie fune be admitted only during the Time ot fuch Adi*
* ons and no longer. . 2if3, is it indeed true, that the P^fi^^^m.?;? Go-
vernment is in ejj'^'df in ihe Hands of a ivr^,^ who are upoe} the Mutter
Bifnops ? .Then it is certainly true, that they are not Schifwaticks^con-
fequeiuiy umt'Mi.'il^>/WVfeparating from them on that Score is un--
juUifiabie
5 6 Defence of the Chap. II-
juftifieable. Is this my reafoning only ? No, but of one of the beft Men
perhaps ever wore Mitre, I mean Dr. l^^M afterwards Bifhop o^KJU
wore in his Anfwer to Mr. Waddefwortbor\QQ2i Minifter in Suffolk^ih^a
a Roma^Catholickatid Penfioner of theHo/j Inqutfuionm'^eviL Wnd*
defivorth in his Scripts after his Revolt tell foul upon the Reformation in
thefe Words. ' In France^ HolUnd^^d Germafjy they have no Bifhops.
To this Dr. B^Manfwers (/>). ' What if I fhould defend they have ?
* becaufe a Bifhop and a Presbyter are all one, as S. Jerom maintains,'
' and proves out ofHoIyScripture,andtheUfe of Antiquity. Of which
' Judgment, zs Medha conftffeth, are fondry of the Ancient Fa-
' thers, both Greek and LatimjS, AmkoJe^AugusHm^Sedfdllus.VrimA"
* fmSj Chryfo^tomeyrheodoretflecnmemus and TheophyUcl : Which point
^ I have largely treated of in another Place, Thus he. But Mr. Wad^
defivorth was an Adverfary much of Mr- RhhcC^ Temper, not to be
fatisfied without B//^<?/ifuperiour to Presley lers. Dr. BeiJ^// therefore
finds a Way' to make all the Proteftant Churches £//Ac'/'^/. InG^r-
w^^/^^theSuperintendents were Bifhops. But what was to be done
■with Fm/^c^ and Geneva whtvQ thefe were not.? "Why, faiih he, there
* are ufuaily certain Chief Men.thzt do in a Manner bear 4// the Sway.---
- ' And what are thefe but bifhops indeed unlcfs we fhall wrangle about
* Names. I hope Mv,Rhind\s here fitted with a Wedge of his own
Timber. Common Senfe Pidates that Superiority in Wifdomand
Dexterity for managing Bufinefs attended with a due Integrity fliould
bear Sway among all Societies, even where the Conftituent Mem-
bers are otherwife equal in their CharaBer : Which amounts to no
more than this, that the Weaker fliould follow the Counfelof the
Wifer, and no other Superiority but this could the Do5ior find necef-
fary by the Word of God among Minilkrs. But, fiith Mr./^/^/-^^,
* Why do thole whofe Superior Abilities entitle them to theChief
* Power, and whoexercife the fame in Fafl-, refufe to be regular-
* ly admitted to the Exercife thereof, that is plainly, to bQcon/ecrated
Bifhops? I anfwer from the excellent Lord FalkUnd who died in the
Bed of Honour fighting for the Royal Martyr (qj, * Tbr e was
* once a Hen in ^fo^, which upon a moderate Proportion ji Barly
laid
[p] Burnet's Life of Bifhop BeHcU p. 4,-5. 454.. [q] Sec his Speech before the Houfc of CoaimoDj tQti
e«rmwa E|iifcopacy m RuIhwoKh'stollea. Vfll.IP-iU UI. p. iSa^ "
SeS:. IV, Presbyterian Government: 57
* laid every Day an Egg. Her Miftrefs enlarging her Diet in Hopes
* ilie would proportionally encreafe her Eggs, She grew fo fat upon
* that Addition that She never laid more. Dignities and Preferments
oftimes turn Men's He..ds, blunt their Wits, or rebate the Edge of
their Diligence. How often has it been feen that a very good .1///?/-
fierlus madeb.Jt a very indifferent Bi/hop'^ So long as they are equal
ill Autliority, they know it is only their Superior Wifdom and Ver-
tue that can entitle them to RefpeQ: from or Sway among their Bre-
thren. 'Timfiri'i excites their Spirits,and theft keeps them on the Bend :
But when once they are fettled in the Dignity by a formal Inftal-
tnentjthey know that Reverence is due to their Characler,how unac-
countable foever their Condu6 is. Of all forts o^BifJjops, thefeare
^ the moftdefireable whofe Dignity rifesand falls in Proportion with
their real Merit and wife Managment. This puts them upon their
good Behaviour, which is neceiTary for Clergy-men as well as for
other People. And this is plainly the Cafe of ouv Freshjierhrj Bi-
Ihops. To allthisMr. i^/^;Wmay pleafetoadd, that they refufe, and
their Brethren will not allow them to be cof^fecrAted to the Dignity,
becaufe it is not only without \yarrant,bwt againlt the Precept of our
Lord Matth. 20.25, whareof afterwards. In the mean Time Mr.
Rhind having acknowledged that iht Presbyterians have fuchasare
Bifhops upon the Matter ; 'tis plain He has feparated from them for
the Want of what is not Material, :^to. Astohis Inlbnceofthe JSf
Afferiory oi the htri}?Jick Power. If he had fiid, that the y^/;?/(?, as
he calls them, by Importimity prevailed on, or by pure Dint of /?^^-
/?»rerfwaded the Reft that fiichauA? was either not neceffary or
not feafonable at that Time ; I believe he hadfpokeTiuth, but no-
thing to the Purpofe, hQQ2iU{Q Presbjtey tans {WW own^ that feme, who
in Point oi Authority areonly on a Levell with their Brethren, may
yet befupeiiorto themin the £<^cA.y/rt//V.?/ Politicks. Bu^tofiy that
they got itcruflied by their Authority was to be toopvodigalof his
Credit, the whole Nation knowing ittobefrilfe. 4'^?. I know that
h'^v. Rhi/id mentioned this Inihnceby Wwy of Reflexion againQthe
¥nsbjteri/tns, and therefore I muft take the Freedom to tell him, that
iliQGemral APj'emhly has done more, evenfince the Revolution, for
alTevting ihe IntriKfick Poive/ than all the Preliitiils in Scotla^.d^vtr had
the Courage to do. Thefe latter, upon the Reliauracion ot^K.Charles
iW ^ H II.
5S Defence of the Chap. IL
ir, meanly truckled to an avowed E?'^//^/; Ufurpation without the
lead Remonftrance or Reclaiming. And when the late K. "James fent
d^v/n his Proclannation of the Date Feh.12. 1687. for an unbound-
ed Toleration, wherein^by his Abfolute Power and Prerogative Roy-
al, he annulled and revoked the P^;^.?/ Laws againfl: F^/?///j ; the
Archbifliop of Sawt Andrews and the Elefi ArchbiQiop oi Glafgom
were the fecond and thkd Perfons who fubfcribed a Letter of Thanks
to him for the faid r£?/£?r^/i^;?and Proclawatio», . The Letter bears
Date iv^.24. 1687. It is fluffed with che raoft fulfome Flattery, and .
aSoothingof the King in thofe Meafures which took away the
Barrier of the Pyt3/e/?^«^ Religion and atlaPcruinM himielf. Soun-^
willing were that Unfortunate Prince's beii Friends to venture their
Polls by giveing him free and honeft Counfel; when they might have
/^i^^/j' (a ved their King, Sindi ce?t/iiKly their own Confciences by the
doing it. The Ge?ierd Jj[emlf/y on the other hand have a61:ed a fomer
what better Part: For when in the Year 1692 the Udii'l of Lot hi aj^
would needs difToIve it in a very abrupt Manner, to fay no Worfe ; .
the Moderator, with all due Refpe£^ to the Civil Powers, andyec
with that Courage that became a Churchman pofTefTed of the Chair
in the bighefljudicatorie, boldly aflerted the //^/ri/^/f^'Fcij-w even ia
the . Face of a frowning Government, and the whole Ajfemhij adher-
ed to him in fo doing. I hope then Mr. Rhi^d will fee chat he fhould
have been wife in his Wrath,and not needlefly have given Occafioa
tofucha Piece ofHiftory. ^to. His Reafoningconcliides alike againft
Bifbop as well as the Members of the GenerAlAjfembly ; for the World :
does_ notv/antto know that Bifhops are not always the Wiffftany
more than the ^^/ Men. And hehimfelfw?.sawareofthis'Buf,A/V^Z'5
^ p. 58, When fuch is the Government of the Church,that there are
* diiferent Spheres in which Men are toa6i, "^ t is py eft/ m'd they are cho-
* 'fen with Quahfications proportioned to each. But why ihculd that
be />r^/«w^(^/ whichno Man can prove, and every Man will deny ?■
and does not he himfelfov/n, T/;^^, i; has toofnquenily (japptmd^ thAt
Men (^/inferior Abilities have attained to the bighcit EcdrftiUfCtU Digm-
ties. And does net the Hiftory of tlie late Times confirm this ?
Witnefs M. Wallace^ w ho, in the . Year 1 662 was preferred to l^e Bi-
fhop of the IJlesy though lie undcri^ood nor one Syllable of the Ndtive •
i-^Pgu^S^^oi hi^.Diocefe 3 yet a powerfuilRecQiiiiiieuuatioi] and ths •,.
good..
ScGt. IV. Presbyterian Government] 59
good Quality of Pliancy procured him thQCrofier. Bur, faith Mr*
Rhmdy This is nottbe FmU of theConHitution but of tbofe who prefer r
them. Very mannerly 1 And fo all the Faults of the Bifljofs mull: be
charged upon the Prirjce. But the very Conftitution has been always
fuch in Scotland^ that it was at leafl a very great Hazard if ever a
worthy Ferfon was chofen. Generally Men of Merit are modeft
*«nd love Obfcurity ; the moft unworthy Perfons are moft foreward
to put in for Preferments; Courtiers, by whofe Eyes and Ears the
Prince muftfee and hear, are moft ready to recommend fuch as are
likely to be the moft ferviceable Tools to themfelves in their Political
"Defigns. The Prince's Conge ^' elire makes the Ele£^ion of the Chaf'
?^raSham. So that upon the whole there was a Fault in the very
Conftitution,even though the Office had been initfelflawfull.
III. Mr Rhind is refolved to end this Argument with one bold
Stroke. * According, ^/V^ /?f p- 38. to the Presbyterian Platform,
* the lefs knowing and Wife are allowed an equal Authority with
^ thofe who deferve it beft: An EftabUlhment which feems to bid
f Defiance to Common Senfe. Did Mr. Rhind never hear of the
Roman Senate ? 'Twas reckoned the moft venerable Bench in the
World; yet there did P^mj reign in Perfection, and that notwith-
ftanding the Inequality among the conftituent Members in Point
of Prudence. That fine Gentleman the younger Pi/>j giveing his
Friend Arriams an Account of an AQion before the Senate in
which he had been employed to plead, tells him ^. Thus itfeemed
good, to the Plurality : For the Votes aYenumbered not weighed. NOR CAN
IT OTHERWISE BE IN PUaLlCKCOUiVClL,/>n'/^/<:/^ there is
TiCthingfo unequal as the Equality it /elf: For the Right of all is equal tho*
their ^Lfudsnce is unequal. Did Mr. Rhind never hear of theHoufe
of Lords or Co-^mons in Parliament ? Are not all the Mem-
bers in thefe feveral Houfes allowed an %//<«/ Authority? yet who
ever faid that they were equally qualified, or that it was necelTary
They fliould be fo? If he has never travelled (ohvasfVt/lmin/ler
in his Views, yet did he never hear of the Lords of SeJ/ion or Sena»
H 2 tors
>T^ S:d I'oc pluribiis vi(um elh Numcrantur cnim Sentcntix; no:i poiiderantur. Kcc ali«
Md in pub CO Concilio potelt fieri, in quo uiiiil ett tarn inxqua'e qu.mi ^qualitas ipfa :
»am cum fi; impai Prudentia, par omuium jus eft. r//*. Lib, ii» Ep. xii.
66 Defence of the ^ Chap.- /Z
^ors of thQ College of Jciftice in Scotland? Does he not know that
none of 'em hav^ a Negative on the Reft; that tliey have all
an f^//<2/ Authority, though they never had, nor probably ever will
have et^ud Abilities ? Yet one would be very void of Ccmmon Serife
that would venture to fay, that their Gcnftitution bids a Dejia;-ic-e
to it.
Sa much for his Argument from the Nature of the Things of
which he is fo vain, that he affirms p. 39. /> may in fame M^afure
ferve to determine the Cos^troverfy about Church Government : And
r.hope, after what has been faid, every Reader will grant that
he. may for €ver enjoy that good . Opinion of it without fear of a
Rival:
A R T I CLE II
Wherein Mr. R hind 'x Argument for the Necel^
fity ofmfiitutingVrehcyfrom the Form of Go-
"vetnment in the jewifh Church;, is Examined.
From F, 39. to P. 45. ^ ^^^
15 E F O R E I (late this Argument, I mufl put ( yet once more )
J ' the Reader in Mind, that though the Vreibyterians-d\Q againft
2l Subordination of PaHors, yet they are for a Subordination cf Officers,
as. well as the Vrdatijls are. And that therefore when his Argij-
ment concludes againft a Varity of Gfjicers^ ox hx^ SubordinMe Farm
cf -Government ^it is only a Parcel bf Empty infignificant Words hud-
led..togeiher^ unlefsby the former we underftand Vresbytrj^ and by
ih^UiiQ^ ? re lacy. This premifed, His Argt'ment Hands thus.
I A .Government conAkuie. by a Subordination oi" Rulers, was
t a^luallj;
Sed. IV^ FrcshytCYian Govermicjit. 61
^ a6\iia]ly apprdven of by God under the Old Teftament : For
* the Form of Government which by Divhie InOitution obtained
* in the Jew/Jh Church was conilituted by O/Jicers a^'mg inanlnfi-
* parity ; f/^ch as the High Prieft, Prieftsand Levites ; each of which
* were Orders diftincl from, and Subordinate to the other, p.
40. This is his whole Medium^ and the only Inference that can
juflly bemade from it is ( which every Presl^jterrar/ grams) That
fuch an Imparity was not only Lawfull but alfo bed fov thai State
of the Church. But Mr. RhimPs Inferences from it are of a higher
Nature, viz, Thatifiti^Ashelltmder th^t Dif^snfatiort^ he cannot
conceive how it ca-a he reckoned anlawfull/^ the Christ ia-ft Church. I
cannot but pity the Weaknefs of His CoKcePticai For if our Lord
has changed the Jewijh Prieflhood, and dilToIved their Polity, and
fet up the Chriftian very diflvrent from it, will nor this make it
urjlawftilR O bur, by Mr. Rhind\ Account, our Lord did not this^ he
could not do it,it was not confiftent v/ith his Wifdom to do ir,plainly,
' it IS, faithhe,p,. 41, an Impeachment of the Divine Wifdom to
* think that God would alter that Form of Government which he
'^ had inftituted to eftabliili anoiher quite different from it. And
now you have his whole Argumeor, an Argument which he thinks
fufEcient to prove the Perpciuity oj ih.it form.
In difcourfing it I fliali iliew, f/V/. That, as he has laid it, it is
liorridly Impious. Secondly, Th:U his Managmentof it againll: the
FrashyiericLtn is Ridiculous, Thrfdlj. Thst it is in it felf Weak,
and concludes nochingtothePurpofe in th'sCoiitroverfie. Fourth*
/v. That if it conclude at all, itconciades for aa Ualvsrfal Papacy
rather thcio a Diocefan PreUcy. And Laiil), Thar it is rejetkd as
infufficient by the Epi/copal Authors thennfelves.
I. The Argument as he has laid it is horridly Impious. God
mud not be Wife, that is, he muft^ not be God, unlefs Mr. Rhwd
pleafe. No Chrilfian ought to pafs that Way of talking he has
got into without Refentment. Saucinefs againfl the Almighty is
Intolerable. What.' Wab it notconfilierit with the Wifdom ciG'^d
to alter a Forni of Government he had formerly indituied ? Has
Mv, Rhi^d vccid 'diQ Bic'Ii', a'^d knows not that God governed IJ-
rael firft by Judges and then by Kings, and yet was ij.Hnidy wife
ifl both? It hw dia this in the !^tate. why lliould k reflect en his
62 Defence of the Chap //,
Wifdom to do it in the Church'? Nay has he not aiElually done it in
the Church ? For,was not both the Civil andEcclefiaftical Power O-
riginally in the fame Perfon, in Adam,ihQ Patriarchs^ and Mo/es.;
and yet under the Law did He not put the Eccleftaftical Regiment
into the Hands of the High Prieft, Priefts and Levites, fo that the
King was no longer Prieft ? And might he not have learned this
from Dr. L— j Himfelffr;? The Jw;- fondly dreamed thattheic
Polity was to laft with the World, and perfecuted the firft Martyr
Siefhen to the Death, becaufe he had taught, that "^pfus of Nazareth
wou'd change the Cufioms tvhich Mo^'qs delivered Ads 6, 14, But, if
Mv, Rhind^ Argument is good, Stephen^s Dodrine was Falfe,and
the Jews Murdering of him was only the EfFedtof a laudable Zeah
Is it not more agreeable to the Divine Wifdom to think, that the
Circumftances of the Church being fovaftly altered,her Government
fhould be fo too. Under the ^ewijh Difpenfation the Church
xvas empaled wdthin a narrow Enclofure, but the Gofj^el was to be
preached to every Creature, And is not here a fair Foundation for
altering the Government ? And does not the Apoftle to the He-
brews C. J. V. 12. lay it down for a Principle, that the Prieft-
, hoed being chxn^edy there is made of Neceffity a Chafige a//o of the Law.
How Impious^is it then to infinuate that fuch a Change is incon-
liRGnt with the Divine Wifdom.
II. His Managment of this Argument againfl the Presbyterians
is Ridiculous. Take fit in his own Words p. 45. ' Seeing there
* v/as one of the higheft Order in the Jewifli Church, it follows
* unanfwerably ( taking along v«?ith you what I have faid above
* upon this Head ) that there ought to be one at lead in theChri-
* ilian Church. This, faith he^ is enough to prove the Point a-
* gainft ihQ Presbyterians, and I defy them if they lliall anfwer di-
' recily to evade ir. This Defiance q^ Mc. Rhi^d^s is the very pret-
tieft I ever heard of. Let the'Presbyterians ' take along with them
* what he h?.2 faid above upon this Head, /to ii, iet them grant that
* it is an Impeachment of theDivine Wifdom to think that God would
* alter that FormoFGovernment which he had inftituted among the
[ Jev.'s to Eiiablifli another quite different from it among thcChri-
ilians^
[>•] Fmithiiu itroke. p. 2.
Sed. IV; Vtcshyt^xmi Government: 63
ftians, and then it will follow unanfwerably, that as there was one
high Priejl in //;fi JewiOl Churchy thtreou^ht to be one at IcaH in the
ChriftianC/j'/Wj. That is, as if he had faid, rV^j,you Presbyterians-,
let me bind your Harjdsy afid then Vll undertake to knock out jour
Brains. I truely cannot Imagine v/hat Clals of Men Mr. Rhind
wrote for. Presbyterians will be fo far from taking along with them
his Aflertion, tliat they cannot otherwife look on it than as a mod
rude Attaque on the Divine Majefty. He goes on with his reafon-
ings. ' I ask ihzm^ jatth he p. 44. v^hether it be juft to condemn
^ the Order as ufelefs amon^. Chrifilans, becaof^'one is not able to
* perform all the OrHces belonging to it? Or whether it be nor.
* rather reafonable to acknowledge, that asthsre was inthe Jcwifli
* Chiicch, one Ecclefiaftical Pooler of the highed Order, and no
* more, beciafe one vvas fufficient; fo fliov.ld Chriftians have one
* at lead and as many moe as are needfull? The frcshy'erians are
heartily con^^nt v./ith the Propofal : For, they believe every Gof-
pel Miniderto be an Ecclefiaftica] Ruler of the higheH Order, and
are very well perfwaded that one of ihem is neediiillin every Con-
p,regation. They are fo far from being againd multiplying of Bi-
]bops^ that where there is one in England, they wifli there were three
hundred. Bur, faidi Mr. PJnnd, * Let them allow one Bifiiop for
* every Didri6i, in Proportion to thar, to which the High Pried's
* 'Authority did extend, and the Debate is at an End. The Pref-
bytedans will be conteni: with this hkev/ife upon two very reafon--
able Conditions, ift. It he can prove that there is any Divi?je In-
ftiturion appointing it to be fo. But Mr. Rhinah dictating to God
and thinking lireaju'ijjlnt jjjould be fo,v,'ill nor be admitted by them
as a Proof of this. 2^.. If he can prove that the Ecclefiadical Rulers of
the highed Order i;i the Chridian Church are appointed for the
fame Fundions the High Pried was under the LaW. The High
Pried, that i may fpeak in M. D^^WA^'s Stile, v/as tooder up the
National cr Popular Sacrifices for appropriating to the ^jcwsovAy (whe-
ther by Birth or Profelytifrn, it is itie fame Thing) tlis Priviicdge
of i\\QSegallah^2in(S. the Patronage of the 5iipream Being. But in
all the Nev/ Tedament i cannot find, that any fuch either Nati-
onal or Provincial Appropriation was ever defigned to be the Hnd
oLany of ihaFunQions of any Gofpej Ruler. ■ Nay we find all oiv
^4 Defence of the Ch^p. 77.
the contrary: For, by the GofpelConftitmion, all that worfhip the
faraeSupream Being and in the fame Way that he has appointed are
within the Chiuxh, whatever National Diftindions they have.
III. The Argument is in it feif wQSiky and concludes nothing to
the Furpofe in this Controverfy, becaufe from the whole Strain
ot the Scriptures it is plain, that the Aaromck Priefthood was Ty-
pical, and had at once both its End and i^ccomplirhment in Chrift,
Mr Rhi^d was aware of this Exception, and therefore ElTays to take
it off by two Anfwers. i/?, if the Conftitution of the Levitical
Fricfihood was Subordinate^ ^/;^ Chriftian «^«f/ he fo too^ ctherwife the '
Type is not adequatly r^frefenled by the Antitype p,42. This the Pref-
byterians grant: For Chrift is the great High Prieft ofoarFrojefJton
Heb. 3. I. And all other Chriftians area Royal Priejihood i Pet. 2.
9. Subordinate to him. But other wife, that the Orders of the Clergy
among Chriftians fhould be adjufted to thefe among the J^jw is a ri-
diculous Dream ; feeing,from the one End of the New Teftament to
the other,the Title o^Prieft is never given to the Minifters of the Gof-
pel as fuch. His 2d Anfvver is, * That though thefe Parts of the
^ Priefily Office which did prefigure the Sacrifice and Interceflion
•* of fefus Chrift were to ceafe upon his Crucifixion and Alcenfion,
^ yet that the High Prieft wasalfo a Govermur in the feivsjh Church,
* and that the Ordinary PnQ^thad a fiare in the Government with
* Him, though Subordinate toH!m,and that the Levites were Sub-
^ fervient to both. ArJhe is Confident that the Presbyterians will
'Dotdffirm that the High Prieft or Inferior Prieftsdid Typify any
^ Thing under the Reduplication 0^ Rulers^ or the Levies as
* undei them, or that there v/as any Thing Typicil in their Sab-
« ordination as fuch. But this Anfwer is in all its Parts un'ervice-
able, and in for;^e of them quite Oppofite to himfelf. For i. We have
already fisard 'sAw DolviU declareing,That,?V is theBifJjops Prfukn*
cy not in the Lhrijiirn A ilemblies (?;■;/;, hut in their Sacrifices which can
entitle to a, Prir.apie of Vnity. Therefore Mr. Rhind deftroys the
Argument by abftraciing from the Sacrifices and infifting on the
Gf^vsrnmer.t^ and by confidering ihe Jew/jb Church Officers not as
FriHh but as Rulers. 2. If the Subordination as fuch among rhe
•j Sec bcloie Chap. ll..Sca.II.
Sed, IV. Presbyterian Government] ^5
J^^jvi/Z' Church Rulers was not Typical, then where is there any Ne-
ceffuy, by that Argument, for any fuch Subordination in the Chri-
ftian Church? j. Why is he fo Confident that the Presbyterians will
not affirm,x\\2i{ the High Prieft or Inferior Priefts did typify any Thing
under the Reduplication o{ Rulers'^ He owns he had read the Preshyte*
riitn Authors with diScruputeus Exaihjtfs particularly the A/fare Damn*
fcenuni. Now the Author of (hat Vi'^ork exprelly affirms it (s"). ' The
* very Emwency^ fiuh he, ot the High Priell:, in which the Epifcopal
* Writers place c be Order and Ez/r^jcj ofthat Government, was T)/>/.
^ cat^ and fli<idowed the Sup^r^mimnt D/^«//)' ol our High Prieft
* above all other Priefts, whofe Priefthood has an Influence on all
' the Fairhfull, and m.skes them Priefts and Paftors in an Ethical
* though not Political Senfe. ' Tis then plain that Mr. Rhind\ Co^~
•fdeme nuhis Pomt has been much greater than his Caution. 4. Seing
under t he jff 117///:? Oifpenfation the Ordinary Priefts had a Share in the
Government uith the High Prieft, Why did not Mr. R/;/W tell us
Vphat Share xhi^Ordtnary Vn^^s in the Church oi Ens^land\\?iVQ with
thvir Dioc^Jar/s or High Priefts in the Government ? I cannot find it.
No wonder truly, lor the great Bacon Lord FeruUm could not. This
is one of che Things wherein, heconfeffes, he could never befatis-
fied, viz. xhtSole Exercife of their Authority. ' The Bifhop, y^/V/5p
* he (^^),giv'eth Orders 4/0^?, excommuoicateth^/c?;;^, judgQih alone,
' ThisfeemstobeaThingslmortrv///;^*./ Ejc^w/'/^inGovernmc'nt,and
' therefore not unlikely to havecieept m,in the Degenerate sind Corrupt
< Times. Thus he. Where is then the Subordination in Govem-
pient which Mr. Rhind pleads for?
IV. His Argument, if itconcludeat all, concludes for an Univer-
fal Papacy rather than a Diocelan Prelacy: For there was but one
High Prieft over the Jervsy and confequently there fhould be but one
Supream BiOiop over thQ Chrtllian Church. And indeed Mr. Dod-
rve/l hiS roundly afferted, lh;^t the Original Government of the
Chriftian Church was a P4/>49. That the whole Chiiftian Churches
I were
Cs) Alt. Damafc. p, 140. Scd cum faiitfti omnes f:nt Deo faccrdotrsannon ilia ipfa EM1A7EN-
TIA tbmmi (accidoasm cjuailliponuiuO.dii m d<: £ut3xiam, TYIJCA fuit, & SC/1 Ei-: F. ^J-
NEN i EM fill m; (oncificisnofbi lupra al;os oiniics .vscc d'tes DiGNlTA 1 EM adumbrabac,
CP;iis f ctid'Jtumin omntsfidelcs influit, fi^ ttnicos, licet non poliuc s m cxtcmo^ugim.nc
(acerdotts & ialloics lacit? CO CercaiuCoufidciatiorrS toucliai£tncChuichoi^»^V;»»^. j), X4.
66"^ Defence of the Gliap. IL
were fiibje£l to the Church at Jerufalem\ and that theBilhop of>
'JetHfalem was the Principle of C^/^^//Vir Unity, and that there were
no other Bifhops . in the World but himfelf, and that the fetling of?
Bifhops in particular Dioceffes was an Aftergame, , This is M. Dod^^
mlH Do6irine (y). And it agrees very well with the Argument from
tkcjeiv/jh Piiefthood. . He indeed took Pains to prevent the Confe-
qyence.that this DoQrine might feem to have in Favours of the
Church oi Rome, by teaching, as we fhall hear afterwards, that the
Government was aiured in the Secofjd Century ; but Mr. Rhi»dby
declareing an ^//^r^^/o^^Inconfilienr with the Wifdora of our Lord^.
h^s plainly betrayed the P rote ft am Cau{^» He forefaw that this Ob-
jejftion would be made> againft his Argument. Let us hear how he
wards it off.;-: This . Cavil, faith he^p. 4^. is^ I confefs very ^Uufibie,
an.d our Adverfaries do triumph upon it as. unanftverable ; hut they da not :
prhaps knotvwhom they (}blige by this. . Well y pray who are they ? Let
we tell them, faith he,: That the Roman Catholtcks are no hfs fe^d of it
than they,^ But let. me tell Mr. Rhind^ that this is to write not only ,
weakly but ridiculoufly. . When the Prelatifls go in to the worfl: ;
Part of Pip/'^yj by infixing on an Argument which, fuppoTing its So- ■
lidity, mufl: needs found the F<7/>f's Supremacy, mull: not thQPredjm.
terian^ (^hoh^iVQ provedja hundred. Times, thai'iisabfurd toin-
ferr the Form of Government in the ChnBian from that cxhhQjewip ;
Church J tell them fo much for fear of obliging the Roman Cathelicks ?
This is a new Way he has got of turning theChace, which may be
admired, but, I believe, will fcarcely be followed by any Wife Man. .
But.after all this, how,, does he defend his Argument againfl the F4- •
fifis ? He indeed referrs his Reader to CiizAiithors who have mana- -
ged this Controverfy againft them ; but his own Defence is abfoiutly
Naught, 'Tisthisp»4g.r, ' In foconfiued a Society as was the j^w- ^
^ iJJj Church,any more than oneOfficer ofthehigheftOrtier wasneed-
* lefs; feeing the People could eafily repair to him, from the remotefl: :
I Corners oi Juctea^u^oa all the proper Occalions j and one was fuffi-
cient I
(7)y Pararncs, 5c^. .< p, 9. Ecclefi.^ CrhoMcx rxnmifxi pripanm- ^rmn■^ z-'iCapm Hiero- >•
to\) mijanus. Part^n illi q.a(.m fimilitcr ttn i: pontiles cer, pli Hurololvm <vni judjjus in 5yi)ago«> -
gasjadxorum p^r o.bcm tertaru^m ubicue.ciifpcilas* £t4>aicni.iliqkJtm4ibiVcadicat.j?cr Cluij i-
ScSt. IF. Presbyterian Govemmenu 6y
' cient for the Difcharge of all the Duties Of that Office. But fince the
* Partition Wall is broken down, the Church is become a Society of
' fo largean Extent, that all the Faithful! cannot have Accefsto one,
• nor can one ferve all the Purpofesofthat Office. But why may not
one fe^ve aU the Pufpofes of that Office^ now, as well as during the
whokfirfi Century and a Part of the /^^o;?^ according to M. DoAmll ?
fTistrue the ProfefFors ofChriftianity are more numerous ;?(jm than
they were then: Yet not more widely difperfed. For if we may believe
Antiquity, Chriftianity got confidcrable footing in the Apoftles Days
even in the Nations moft remote from Jerufalem the Center. And that
S.J»drew,S.Smo/tthQCa»aamte, and as fomc fay, S.PW himfelf
planted the Gofpel in Britain, And if the Bifhop fitting at Jerufalem,
* could be a Principle of Unity to us then, why might not the Bifhop
of Rome, who is much nearer hand, be fo to us now ? Let Mr. Rhind
Tatisfie the Roman Catholtcks^ how, for Inftance, all the Faithfull in
the Cities of Ltf»«a^;; gnd Wejlminjier amounting to about a Million
of Souls, how all the Faithfull in the reftofA//^^/^/J'jf,£j!/"^jf and Part
of Hertford Shire on this Side the Globe, how all the Faithfull in
theforreign Engtifh Plantations on the other Side the Globe and
in both the Inclici c«iii hav& Acccfa to the Bifhop of London
their Diocefan, or how he can ferve all the Purpofes of that Of*
fice to them. Let Mr. Rhind, I fay, fatisfie the Roman Caiholtcks
in this; and then I believe ?% will find it no hard Matter to fhevir
how all the Faithfull through the World may have Accefsto one
Pope at Rome, and how t?;?^ Pope alone may ferve all the Purpofes
ofthat Office to theChurch Univerfal. 'Tis plain then that Mr. R/^//?^'s
Argument muft needs inferr the Neceffity of the Pope's Supremacy.
V. His Argument is rejeded as Infufficient by the Epifcopal
Authors themfelves. It will be enough toeftablifh this from the
Mouth of two Witneflcs. The firft is Bifhop Btljon (x) * From
* thefe fuperior and interior Degrees, faith he, amongft the Pricfts
* and Levitcs under A/o/^j, haply may no necejfary Confeoinence be
* drawn to force the fame to be obierved in the Church of Chrift.
* FiriljFor that the Tribe of Levi might not be unguidcd without ma-
l rafeft Confufion, and was not fubjeded to the Regiment of any
I 2 other
Cx) Perpeiual Gov. ol C!uilt<s Cbacch Chap. II. p.ii:
^g . Defence of the Chap. I J? ,
* other Tribei but had the fame Manner of Government by her
*' Prince, Elders, Judges and Officers over Thoufands, Hunders,
* Fiftiesand Tens. And afterward this Preeminence grew unto
* them according to their Families by Inheritance and Birthright,
* The Father was Chief of his Ofi-spring whiles he lived and after
* ■ him his Eidefi;, rJnch is m Waj imuabk mthe Church ofChriJl, Thus ■■
B'ilfdn,
A Second Witnefs is the famous ShUmgfleet a much greater Mdn'
than Bilfon. He not only aflerts f;; but proves irrefragably that the
Chriflian Church was formed not upon the Ten.^le but ihQ Synagogue
Model, wherethere wasno fuch Thing as a Hierarchy, but a Ru-
ler of the Synagogue one or moe, with a Primacy in Point ol« Or-
dur^ but zn Equalttj ot Power with the reft of the Elders of the
Synagogue.' Mr. Rhi^jd then, ere his Argument can hurt the Pref-
byterians muft both anfwer-the Rerfms and refufe the Authority
of his Brethren and Fathers. -
And thus I have done with this Argument ; And cannot but wifh,;
that the EfifcopalSS^vmvso^ xhQ New cut viere fomewhat lefsJm^yZ?/^
given. They are not content • to plead for a '^cwifh Government in
the Church, but have lui ncd alfu uur Lommuniun T^ables into Altars^
CUY MimHers into Priejis, 2n^ iht Communion \mo- 2l Propitiatory
Sacrifice-, yea M. Dodwell (^) has found the Ancient Bi (hops
wearing the Sacerdotal Frontlet in Imitation of the 'Jewtjh High Prieft.
Yea he has found f their SuccefTion Hereditary, Who knows where
the Humor may ft op? If they goon at the lame Rate^ 'tis to be fea-
red they may turn Chriftianity intofomevvhat more than a Myftical
Jfraelitifm^ and revive upon us the old Controverjj'y^. th^t exafi^
m be xircumcife^i^' we cannot hf^ived,..
ivl-lmk.. Part IJ. Chap., vi. (z] . One Pricfthood Chap.,ix» Scft/i 4. | jbid. Scd. 5, .
ART;
Sed. IV; Vxtshy ttnm Government] 6^
A R T I C L E III.
Wherein Mr. R hind 'x Argument for the Neccf-
fity ofinftitkting Prelacy from the Rule ^ of
political Prudence in Compliance with the
Jews and Romans, is examined. From ¥;
45, l(?P,4^-
THTSis an Argument which, as Mr. RhM has diifcourled
it, is, I dare affirm, a pure Orginal Piece ; and chat as no
Man ever uied it before him, fo no Manreadily will after him. The
Summ of it is. The 'Jews were Zealous for their Hierarchy^ the
'Ro/'rims were under a Monirchy, A Parity of Officers ox lev ell ins.
kind of Government ( fuch as he, with equal Juftice and Accu-
racy, (uppofes the Presbyterian to be) would have quite dienxt-
ed the Jeivs from, and raifed the Jealoufte of the Romans againft
Chriftianity; Therefore it tvas not Confident with the Wifdom and
Goodnefs of our Lord and the In f fir at tow of his Apoftles, rvho became
all Things to di yien^ to provoke their Averfion by determining againjh>
their Inclinations p. 46.' And if they had Inftitate fuch a Repub^^
lican Form as the Presbyterian \s, ihQvi doing fa would have juf"
lifted the Perfecutions were raifed by their Enemies againft them;
' FoFj fatih h^y p. 47. would thS^ be juftly blamed, if, for their
'own Security, they fhouid endeavour to Crufli a Society of fo
* dangerous a Conftiturion. And therefore /je leaves it to the Confi-
^ deration- oUll Wife and Impartial Readers, whether it be not a
* 'Thought too uii vvoitby to be entertained of Chnjt and his Jpojlles^
I that They . iiiouid have gi,ven Occalion to/a reafombk a Jexiloufie,
' and
-yO Defence of the Oap^/J^
* and expofed Chrlftians to Perfecutioni upon an Account a*
* bout which they might have Innocently agreed with Their
f Enemies.
Here is indeed a mafterfull Stroke. Here is Infinite Wifdom
: limited and Infinite Freedom confined in themoftEifronted Man-
ner. All the Bufinefs of the Sons of Men is to know what Govern-
ment Chrift and his Apoftles aSually did eftablifli, and upon
finding that, to talce it upon Truft that ic was the very Befl:. But
to prefcribe, what Government Chrift and his Apoftles were ob-
liged in Prudeme to Eftablifh, is Frcfumptuous in the highefl De-
gree. But waveing this, let us tcy whether his FremifTes will in»
lerr his Conclufion.
I. As to the jf^iw. They were X^alous hvthtiv Hierarchy, ErgQ^
faith Mr, Rhind^ Chrift and his Apoftles inftitute one too,becaufe
it would have been difobligeing to them to inftitme Presbjtry. But
;is it not much more reafonable to argue the quite contrary Way,
■Xfiz,, That becaufethe Jews were Zealous for their i//^r^r<r^j, there-
fore Chrift and his Apoftles did not inftitute one ; becaufe if they
Iiad, it would have exafperated the Jem to the greateft Height,
and provoked them to r jvile the Chriftians as 6V^//w4r/th, yea to
vCurfe them as they did the Samarium for fetting up Akar againft
Altar ? Yes, this is fo very obvious to common Senfe, that M. Dod^
ipel/(^a) Himfelf givesitas theReafon, why during the firft Times
of the Apoftles they did for a while forbear the Setting any
Bifhop up in a»y confiderable Superiority over his Brethren,. ^ For^
^\. /^ faith /?^, if this Superiority of the Bijbop were a Subftitut*
*^ ing him in the Place of the Wgh PrteH^ and the
* Multiplying fuch Superiors in feveral Cities weie the mul-
* tiplying High PrieHs in feveral Cities ; it plainly appears how
'^ this muft have been interpreted by thofe who were jewtjhly af-
•^/efted, from the Principles already mentioned. They muft have
* looked on fuch Perfons as not*3nly VwUtors of their Latv, bur as
* Ireakers of their my f teal V^ion^ and confequently obnoxious to the
'*^ fame Car/f/ and £jc^^r^^/(?wi which on the fame Account had been
'^J thundered againft the Samaritans, Thus he. Yea, he tells us
elfe-
Ca] Oils .Prjeftliood .Chap. IX. Scfl. 7. p. i+8.
Scdii I V; Pre sby tcrian Government] 7 1
clfewhere (^),that Chrifl: was fo far from inftltuting a Hlermfjyy
that he did not fo much as intimate to his Difciples that ever any
Hierarchy^ diftin^l" from the Jeivi/b which already obtained, wasta
be fet up ; yea, that if he had i ntimate any fiich Thing, the Difci*
pies themfelves had been in Peril of Revoking from him on that'
very Account. I hope then we are in no great Hazard from.'
the Jews.
11. As to the Row/i/^j. 'Tis True they were under Monarchy. Erg(p
fay I. \mo. Such a Conftitution in the Church as made every Bi»-
fliop a Monarch in his own City, and i-aifed him to a Throne ( I^
hope Mr. RhM knows the Epifco^d Stile J would have heighten- -
ed their Jealoufie and provoked their Indignation againft the Chri-
ftians. For, ,tho' bur Lord difclaimed all medling wirh Secular '
Affairs, and at length became invifible,' upon which Accounts the -
Romans had no jufi^ Reafon to be in any Apprehenfion from him-
felf ; yet who knows not that 6V^/f; are Jealous even of the fmalled '
Appearances ? Was itnoc Chrift's being called K/'^^^ of the jT^iVj that
^\\v\gHiiroi fofharply that he fotightto murder him in his Cradle?
Was it not on the fame Pretence that P//^^ condemned him in Judg-
menr,when hehad acquitted him in his Confcience ? If they were
thus Jealous of a Monarch^ who owned His KJn^dcm not to be of
this H^orld, and was fhortly to leave it ; would they not have been
much more fo if a vifible Monarch, Independent of the State ^h^dbQQn
fet up in every City f And has not the Event fhewed that they had
had Reafori for fuch Jealoufie, when Bifhops in moil: Kingdoms have
madefuch Encroachments on the Civil Government, and theBifliop
oidiome has fet his Foot on the Ne«^s of ihe greateft Emperours.. ur.i^.
Arid does not Mr. Dodmll himfelfconfefsj (<r) That it was the Su-
premacy of the Bifhop of Jerufa/em, u^ion whom, as he fancies, all
theChriftian Churches through the World did depend,that provoked
the. Gentiles to Rage fo much in Peifecution againli that Church,
thatthe Head being once lopt of^V thrift ianity might be ruined at
once. 2do. If a FreUttcalFoan oi Government would have any Way
^^ ^ fi recom*
rblParrrify. • Se^fl:. ^ 1 4. .^. 58,1. ^c ^-ParsnrSc. Scdt."i«. p. 6^' Sufpkor hoc" fine adfo fft':«
£ccicfiam. Hi«ol9L]jnitan4niilvii>«'eGvU:i.eS| iV)^ c^^itc lubi^tO} t^s CtuXiiina^uainU sua c«fi;'"
ckktct, .
7^ Defence oftht Chap. 77.
r-ecommended the ChriftUn Church to the Favour of fecular Prin-
ces, or even alleviate their Spite againfl: Her, Is it not ftrange that
none of the Apologias for C^;'/yi?^»/V)' ever infifted on that Topick?
Is it not ftrange that the younger F//»y, (d) who gave the Emper-
our fo Difcreet an Account of the Chriftians, never mentioned
how well their Governnient was fuited to that of the Empire? yo^
Why fhould Mr. Rhi^d Imagine that a P ar it y of Officers smqmI^zi^*
pear any uncouth Thing to the Romaics : For, hid they not a Couple
of Conjuls of equal Digniry chofen annually ? Nay, did it not fhort-
ly after this grow in ufe to have a Couple of Empttrours ( fome-
times moe) reigning with concern, jEqua Jut e&s Eunopioas^e) ty^m
prefles it. Soiar were they from having an ill Opinion of Parity^
/\to. Does not Mr, Rbmd know that moft ot all the brave Spirits
among the Romans in the Apollles Days fecretly groaned under
the imperial Chains; impniently longed for,and fometimes brave-
ly attempted the Recovery of their ancient Liberties and Govern-
ment? Does he not know that upon the Death of CaltguU th»
Senate decreed that the Memory of the Cefars fhould be exiin-
guiOied, and the Temples built to their Honour thrown down, and
that, by the Trtbune of the People they Difcharged CUudtus^ who
had been faluted Emperour by the Army, toenieron the Admini-
fhation, though indeed they wereat laft overpowered by a military
Force ? If therefore we were to reafon on fuch Common Place Ar-
guments, 'tis plain that a Monarchical Form of Government in the-
Church would have mofl excited the Jealoufie of the Prime ^zwd
that a Republicm Form would have gained her moll Profeljts a-
niong the People,
Bur, faith Mr. Rhind p. 48, rve do net find that tver their Perfe^
cutors did charge it upon them as a Crime^ that the Church was of a
Republican Conjlitutwn, True indeed they did not ; For they knew
that the Chriftians owned Chrift as their Head and King, and
on that Account miireprefented them as Rebells and Seditious
Perfons, and raifed /^erfecution againfb Them, Jud^os ( (aith
button )(f) Impuijore Lhx^^Q ajjtdue tumultuames Roma expulit.
But
[^] Ep. 97. Lib. X, (.e) Breviar, Lib. viii. (f) lu Chad. La^-. xxy.
SqB:. V. Vrcshyt^Yim Governmenf. jj
Bnt I have infifted too long againfi: an Argument the mod Mag-'
gotifli was ever bred in the Head of a Liveing Creature. I doubt
not but the Reader is Curious to know what could put him upon
it. The Difcovery ofthis is no hard Matter, imo. It was even
pure Love to the F^e^jch King, that he might Juftifie Him in all
his Barbarous UDge of his Protefia^ji Subjeds. Who could have
blamed thQ RoMa^^ timperours, if, for their own Security they had
crufhed the ChriHiAn Church, in Cafe her Government had been
Freshytry'^ This is his Do^rifie; and is not the Vfe ofit very obvi-
ous, viz. The Government of the French Proteftant Churches was
Fresbytry^ who then can blame His woy? C hnft ia^i Majeftyior Cvu{h»
ing a Society offo dangerous a Constitution ? 2do. It was to teach
out own Princes at Home how they are in all Time commg to
treat us. We are Presbyterians, and Presbpry alone is a reafonable
Ground of Je/t/oo//^? and juft Q2iWk.o{ ^erjecution. Thus Mercifull
and Gofpel-like is the FreUtick Spirit. But I go on.
S E C T, V.
IVheretn Mr Khmd^ s Proofs for evincing tbdt
Prelacy aBnally mas inftituud^ are examined^
From P. 50. to P 11^,
MR. Rhhd p. 40. falls a Haranguing witli a very difdalnfull
Air, which yet becomesa High-Fiyer admirably v«/eil. 'A
^ Government, faith »^, conftituteby a Subordination ^f Rulers is
^ aBually approven of by God, and this he has fo fully norified in his
* Word, that to prove it, 1 am nor put to the wretched Shift of ob-
i trading upon my R.>iaders any remote Coafequences fetched from
K two
74i Defence of the Chapl 77,
* two or three controverted Texts, ^s the Adverfaries in this Cafe
* areobligedto do. ,'Tisvery true that a Hierarchy under xh^'Jew-
f/y^: Djfpenfation was both inftitute and approven of by God : And
how very ferviceable to the Caufe of Prelacy this is, I believe
the Reader is by this Time fuiRciently convinced. But now he
refolvesto rally his Forces and attempts to prove the ARudlnflitu^
//^;; of Prelacy by fix Arguments, the firli four whereof are preten-
ded to be fetched from the Scripture. And no doubt his Reader is in
great Expefiation ; Foi*, after the Harangue you have heard, would
not a modell , Periou be tempted to think, that Prelacy were fo le-
gible in the Bible, that one needed only open his Eyes to find it
there? And yet'cis Mathemdticdly certain it is not there. How Ma»
ihematically you^lfay?: Why the Incomparable Mr Dodwell, who
has dated the Controverfie fairly^ whofe Authorities are Pertinent
and juftlyalledged, and whofe Dedu6tions fromthera, and all his
otherReafonings do proceed in a Mathematical Ch^in^^^s^v^.t\k\^ own-
ed /^) it is not there. Plainly, that Prodigy of Learning hasacknow.
ledged, That ' it is not needful that the Form of Government
' to be now obferved,' fhould have been delivered in the Canonical
' Scriptures ; That there is no Place ohhem which openly profefles
* that ; r/?^rthereis none of the Sacred Wj iters treat of Church Go-
* vernment on Defign. Nay that th^ Holy Ghoft ha^j never defcribed
* any one Form of Government that was to take Place every where
^ and at all Times. • Mr Rhi-^d's Attempt then was too hardy, and
he , was. too defpe rate to undertake that which the abieft Chami^iori
Prelacy ever had owns to be impofliblc to be done. And now I come
info many Artules toexiimme his t^roofs^zu^ 'tis a Lucky Prefage that
they will not be very dangerous, feeing Weare fure neitherto beop-
preffed ■
(g) Parxnts. Jed. 14, f. 57^ Opus nou eft i.c itsiminisEcclcfiarici omj^ loflieoWerNaiv-
iBa,-:! aJit^ lu-nt in fcnptuns caiioi ici«..=r . N; 11 s emm ■. H q ■< id jrfi. arurapcric lacii fcnp,
toris iocu:;. ^ EX. lift quid m ..llVsv]. 1 ,tadr, rcg niuac, aj^'a. ;.£ccleJia ico f uaii id volui ec J'cnpcor, .
aui^'^caftois rtudor i-pirin siaicftus, u ,:ou.>.arn inaiu alt) amiieg mwis ubicjiw.J.' inoinns.i
^vimduivHiuiidtlcnbir.tv, .-.Nuitju^m ..ciiiitor.sl. cri fjtis op'C t t adJc.Oh£sC]iiaLitai:ci.tatJ-
etiic ill Rcirim nc fcclcfiatum ;»muario cu.i primnn. difced-rt"' a Ivn-g j/am-vi'-ommuiiioue iccle-
fi:^^:. N'Jc| aiA.laiis ,ipe- < quaaC .mdr.nis one: u.: tucii i^^i it- s iaoct p.iiojuUvuS, icja:n-.uni, ■
vicillim. locis. &:oftic^s.N^llql)an\ ,,Otfic;a 10s Cit:aoi<iiuaiwS'1'4i iio i^-'o kcuio iuicm lubAtui? .
Cii^at.^b pidiwiusiiftusciiccuweieceriiunc,-^. -.
5ed* V^ Presbyterian Governmenf. 75
prefled with M. Do^/iv^/Z^s Authority, nor ftraitned with his Reafo-
nings, but on the contrary will find him frequently helping us CO
jiniwer M»^md.
ARTICLE 1
Wherein Mr. RhindV Proof for the Injlitution of
Prelacy from its obtaining in the Days of
Chrift;, is Examined. From P, 50. to P. 6i{
MR RhM in Difcourfing this Proof prc»eeds in the following
Method. I. He attempts toreafon his Reader into a Be-
lief that Chiift as Monarch ot the Church behoved to inftituteO/i
fcers of different Orders under Himfelf, by which we muft either
fuppofe him to me=in Prelacy^ or elfe his Argument concludes no-
thing againft the Presbyterians. II. He adduces the Inftance of
the 'Twelve Apoftles fubordinate to Chrilt.and \\\e. Sptjmty nifciples
inferior to them in the Government of the Church. III. He la-
bours with great Induftry to prove that the Text MahIj, 20. 25.
The primes of the Gentiles exerctje Domimon &c with its Parallels
carries ia it rio hfrnuation m tavour of Presbyterian Goverr^wtm ;
and that much lefs ca^t its hftitutton be inferred from tt. All this I
fhall examine in Order.
I. He attempts to reafon us into a Belief that Chrift as Monarch
of the Churcli hJjovtd to inlhiute Prelacy. This he does by
askng two Qaetiioas. Firft, asks he, After what manner 'was the
Church Govermd iniht Days ofChufi? I anfwer, after no Manner
at ail. 1 doubt not but ihi^ Anfwer will furprize him, but I am
7)5 Defence of the ' ^ap. /i;
fare to convince him 'tis a good one. Hear M. Sdge(h) 'Itisobvi^
* oufly obfervable in the Evangelical Records that the Chriftian
* Church was not,could not be founded till our Lord^as riien, lee-
* ing it was to be founded on his. Refuvredion. Is not this piaia
SeniV and Truth too? and if the Chriftan Church had no Being
-b^foce Chrift's Refurrcaion, then certainly no Government; if jio
Government, then certainly not Prt-Z/j^/W Government, and confe-
quently M. Rhwd\ Argument is loft to all Intents and Purpofeso
Tis clear as Light, that fuch as lifted themfelves with Chrift mthe
Days of bis Flefh were under no diftin6r Government but that of
thtjewifi Church With which they were ftill incorporate, and from
which,as we have already proved, no Confequence can be drawn
for the Naitrreof the C7;r/y:/?v2/? Government. 'Tis Plain then. that all
further Confideration both of M, Rhind^ Rea/o/7i»gs and hjfa^ce
are utterly Needlefs. .
But fliort Anfwers cut one's Houghs, and are apt to be very pro-
voking. Wherefore, that his Harrangue may not be loft, I fhall
aofwer his Queftion according to his Heart's Wilb viz. That
Oar Biejf'/d Lord kh^felf ivas usfolelQngandHead. And if. this will
content him for making the Government of the Church Monar-
chical, I dare promife him no Presbyterian will contradict him.
Burthen, upon /iiis Conceflion, he has a fecond Qiieftion to ask.
Was there ever a Government of a Monarchical Conftitution,
^ where the Monarch did nor, ■^Q2i. behoved not to derive of his
' Auihoiity in nn or^Qvly Gr^aArj&K u^on fevcral Subordi/iate WUfXi"
* fters? ; You fee here good Reader M. Rhinah Modetty, But
was Chrift under the Tame Necefli^y with other Monarchs.?
O yes, Shall we f/ippofe, faith he, tkt^ he who isKjng in Xlonjhail d&
other wife in Hi^ Churchy thm all w ife Princes have ever done in their
Kjngdoms} So now you have Mr. R/;/Ws Heart. Chrift, the
Wijdomoj Qody muft take his Meafures from th^ wi/e Prince j of the
Earth. But what though ail this were Trlie;. that not only ail
the wife Prihcts of the Earth, but e\tncur I ord Himfelf no'tonly
had, but behoved to derive ot their Authority in an orderly Gradi*.
//(?/;?. upon- ft'veral' Subordinate Q/S'f|j|^and that a Parity, of Ru^trS'
1|B under
^J Vind. of the Piiu, of.thc Cypr. Age Chap. VI. Se^. ;, -. • \
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government: nj
under a Monfarch would make a Monfiroas^ and in it felf a Co^tncli^
^4ot4i Conilitution, how would this affe6l the Fm%fm/>i? Fortho'
they deny, that ClirKt while on Earth inftitute a Subordination of
O^V^r^and have a very good Reafon for it, as we fliall jufl: now hear
yet they both plead for and actually exercife a Government by
Subordinate O^W^. And I hope 'tis very eafie to conceive how
a Thing may be not only of Scripture in the General, but even of
A^(?ji; XV/Z^wf^^Inftitution, which yet was not Inftituteby Chrift
while he was upon Earth. 'Tis then evident that Mr. Rh/^d^$
Reafoning, fuppofe it had no other Faults, yet imports nothing a»
gaii'.lt the Vrei-bjjtertAns;.
Bur, if Mr. K/;/W pleafe, let us abftrad frotn what Chrift ^f.
hoved to do^ and confider what he did. I affirm that while he
was upon Earth he was (b far from Inflituteing Subordinate P^-
7?^/^, that he did not fo much as in ftitute Subordinate Officers, And
this brings ms to Mr. K/wva's Inftance.
IL He adduces the Inflance of the TiWz'^ Apoftles Subordinate
taChrtft,and the ^w^/j Difciples Inferior to them in the Govern-
ment of the Church. 'Tis needlefs to fpend Words on it. Let
US' lee if the Epjcopd Authors-have not fitted him with an Anf-
wer.
The firft is Dr. Whitby a late frefli Writer. ' Whereas, faith
* he^Qj fome compare the Bifiiops to the Apoftles, the Seventy to
* the Presbyters of the Church ; and thence conclude that divers
^ Orders in the Miniiiry were inftituted by ChriiV Himfelf. It
' mufi: be granted that the Ancients did believe thefe two ro be
* divers Orders, and that thofe of the Seventy were Inferior
^ to the Older of the A^oftles; and fometlmes they inake the Com-
* parifon here mentioned : But then it mull be alfo granted, that
' this Compartfon will not firi^ly hold \ for the Seventy received not
*■ their ViifRon as Presbyters do from Bifhops, but immediatly froni
* the Lord Chiili, as well as the Apoftles ; and \n their firlt Mif-
' fion were plii.ily lent on the fame Errand and with the fame Ppiv*
er,' Thus Dx. Whitby.
The Secona IS M. 6'^^?. ' Our Martyr Cj/'r/^;?, fdthhe,ik) (as
* appears
\\\ A'lnot. ou L«,^e 10. I. [kj Ibid, ubi fjpia
^S Defence of the ChapJ II;
* appears from bis Reafonings on divers Occafions ) feems very
well to have known, and very diftindly to have obferved, that
'* the Apoftles tbemfehes got not their Commifjton to be Governours
' of the Chrlftian Church till after the Refurre^m, And no wonder,
* for this their Commiffion is moft obfervably recorded John 2o»
' 21. 22. 25- No inch Thing anywhere recorded concerning ihe
^ Seventy. Nothing more certain, than that that CommifTion which
* is recorded Luke 10. did conftitute them only temporary Mif-
'* fionariesandtliat foran Errand which could not poffibfy be more
•^ than temporary. That Commiflion contains in its own Hof^.m clear
' Evidences, that it did not inftal them in any fkndmg OtSce at
'^ all, much lefs in any ftanding Office in the (jhnftiaa Church, .
' which was not yet in Being when thty got it. Could tharCommiflion
'^ which is recorded Luke 10. any moreconftitute theLXXitand-
^ ing Officers ot the Chriftian Church, than the like Commiflioa
'^ recorded Matth, 10. could conllitute the Twelve fuch (landing
* Officers? But it is Manifeft, that the CommifTion recorded
'^ Matth. 10. did not conftitutethe Twelve Governoursof theChri-
-^ flian Church; otherwife what need of a new Commiffion to that
* Purpofe after the RefurreQion ? Prefumable therefore it is that
^ S, Cyprian did not at all believe that the Seventy had any Suc-
•* ceffors, Office Bearers in the ChriPdan Church, feeing it is fo
' obfervable that, thej themjelves received no Commiffion to be fuch Of
< fee Bearers., Thus M. Sage, And what now is become of the
4)rderly Gradation. The Apoflles themfelves were not conRitute
^Governing Officers before ChrilVs Pvefurredion, How then could
the Seventy be inferior to them ip- the Government of the
Church ?
And thus now we have heard Mr. Rhind'^s whole Proof of the
obtaining of Prelacy in the Days of Chrift ; For not onelnftanceor
Declaration more has he for this Purpofe. Yea indeed he is fo Ingenu-
ous p. 53. as to difciaim a fafiiive Ir.flituriorj ; and only pleads p.
6i» that the Suboidmation, which obraihcd among thoTwihe A-
pofllts and Seventy Difciples, declares, what Form of Government
ChriO: liked beil:, and confequently is ?i' Precedent Ec[ruva/e/it to aa
InfliiUtio 1. Aiid Vv^e have heard' that thtic was no fuch Subordi'
Mtion^ mi .that .tiifcrerore it can he liO Precam*
But
Scdii Vi Presbyterian Government] 79
But Mr. Rhirjd is refolued to be equ^l with the Presbyter Uns, and
to make it good that there" is no pfttive Inftiiutionof P^m^ in the Four
Gofpels.
III. He labours with great Induftry to prove that the Text Mmh,
20. 25. * The Princes of the Gentiles exercife Dominion he with its
* Parallels, carries in it no Infmuation in Favour Q){ Presbyterian Go-
* veroment ; and that much Icfs can its Inftitution be inferred from
it. For my own Parr, I cannot find any one Presbyterian Author
that ever infifted on the faid Text for a P^y^/zT/^Inftitution of Presby-*
try, bur they urge it as an exprefs Interdidlion of Prelacy^ and from'
thence in Coniandion with other Scripture Warrants interr, that,
by Scripture In (iitution, the Governftnent of the" Church fhould be
Presbyterian, . But by no means will Mr.' Rhind allow that the faid
Text has the leaft Afped that -Way ; and healHrmsp. 55.Th?tthe
Intent of it is to correct the Difciples Mijlake concerning the 'Ptmpord
JQffgdom of tbe'^Q^d^s^and to warn them againli Pride andTyraf/y, but
not at a\\ to forbid a Subordination of Officers ^ PaHdrs^hQ fhould have
faid. Now that I may do Mr. Rhind Juftice, I fhall confider every
Thin^ he has advanced for wreliing this Text out of the Presby^
/^m/y's Hands*. •
I . Itfeems^ faith he p. 5 ^ , to favour an Eqadity^ hut be it known to you
others hava madeufe of it wuh much more reafon to prove a Preeminence,
The Reader, no doubt, will be in Pain tokhow whothefee^z/'fyi may
be. Pliinly 'tis Bcllarmin, who from thence attempts to prove the
Pc/?e's' Supremacy ; with as much Rf^/^w no Doubt, as he does the
La whilaefsof denying the Cupto the Laity frointhefe Wovds Drink
ye all of it,
2. : There are no other Texts, faith he ibid, in the four Gofpels which the
Presbyter ians^«?, ■ that I can remember , fo much as alledge to this Purpn/e,
But here his Memory has tailtd htm : For if hehadconfulred DiUocU'
'mas or St iHtn(r fleet .|^ ' he miglir have found another Text, viz. Maith.
18/1 5. Td -he C/?«yf^/, which the Presbyterians infilt on to the fame
Purpofe with the lormer. «
3. ' The learnedtlf Vuihorsofthat Perfwafiort, /^/^/j he^. 54. can-
■ l tiidly own, that the Eqiialuy which they contend for cannot be
^ Alc.-DAQHi. Cip.^r/. i>. .i^a.' Ircaic £uU li> CUap. Vj *'•
8g Defence of the Chap W
' ferred from this Place. WtW^'^ho^iXQ iht^QledvnedeH Authors'^ He
inflancesM. Pool, But why doeshementiunhim? Heanfwers,
* becaufeheis of fo great Authority with them at this 1 ime. Well,
fhafl the Presbyterians confult liim ? By ail means, and faith he, ' they
« will be convinced that I have done him no Injuftice. But what
Book of his fliall they confult? The Annotations, faith he, which
fifs mder his Nawe. Now, good Reader, M.Pc^o/ was Dead and
Rotten ere thefe ^;^/?(?/^f/^;?J were written. Plainly»it was Dr. Collins
wrote them, who was indeed a Difftntery though 1 have not yet
heard whether he was a Presbyterhn, But whatever he was, he was
very much inferior in Abilities to M. Pot?/. Are not Preshjteriaffs now
Iliightily ftiaitned with M. P^(3/'8 Authority.
4. Th^y 2iXQthe lejfer Presbyter tan Authors ^rnhhtihidi, hyrvhomitis
(till inftfled orj. lam truly (orry that Mr. Rhmd{[iQu\di fo frequently
fliew himfelf unacquainted with the Writers on bothSides.after he had
told he had read them with a Scrupulous ExaHneJ s \ or which is much
worfe, that he fhould fo often bid Defiance to the Sincerity which
the N ature of his Compofure required. Calvin, Bez,ay Chamier^ Can^
wright^ Didoclavius, Turretine^ the Belgick, theEf^ghfi, Diodatt's An-
notations do all of them, befides Scores of others, a^ert that not
only the tyrramical EKercifeybut a Pominionov Prelacy it felf is thereby
forbidden to the Paftors of the Church. Were thefethe lefir Au^
thorst But why do I mention them? The fi»^///Z> Divines them-
felves from -that very Text prove the Pope's Supremacy to be un-
lawful! by what humble Methods foever attain'd to, or with what
Moderation foever exsrced. And how the Pope's Supremacy fhould
be unlawful! by Vertue of that Text, and yet the Supremacy of
the Primate of all England^ who is alterius Orbts ?apa^ not be fo;
it will be hard to give a Reafon, except that which the Lord Falk-
lard in his forementioned Speech has fuggefted viz. That they op»
fofethe PapdC) beyond Sea, that they nmy fettle one bt-yond the Water,
^ear Dr. iVhiiaker. It is not, faith he, (/; Humility in the Domi-
nation that is required, but the very Domination tt j elf that is forbidden*
And then goes on anfweiing the Oiticifms advanced by Mr.
Khind^ but whereof Bellar mi^ w&s thQ true Father. The Church
of
IQ De Poncii'. Queft. I. Cap. 3. Scft-j,
^ecl. F, Trcshytenm GGvemnent, S"!
of Engl^ind Divines, to give them their Due, have oftimes made
a- Noble Stand againfl: the Church of Rome, No wonder, They
had both Truth on their Side, and confiderable Dignities to lofe
in cafe they got the Worfe. But of all xMen in the World they
arc tlie mod: ro be pityed vi/hen they have to Difpute againft the
Prcsl^jterUns^^or the very fame Arguments wherewith they defeat-
ed the Romanifs^ with the very fame Presbyterians defeat them ;
whereby they make theexa£l Moral of the Gcofemtho, Fable wh ch
was wounded with an Arrow feathered from her own Wing. 5. The
Origind iVord ^{d.\ih. he p. 56. rvhtch ourTanJl^itors h.tve reridered To
exercife Authority ( Domtnion he fhould have faid ) does propprly
figp^ijie fuch nn exercife of it as is Tyranmcd'^ which he endeavours
to prove F/r(? from iif^i, Secondly fvom the S fuagintjThirdlyf\-om
S. Luke A5ls 19. 16. whtch^hnh he, is the only other Place where it
occurrsin all the New TeflAment^ and certainly implies Violence and
TyarJi^yj being ufed tofignific; how the DomQn\2ick overcame the Sons
of Scev.t. Now let us examine this. In the Ftrsi Place, BezijOa
that Place, is not Criticizing on the Word, or telling what it na-
turally imports, buc is Delcribingthe adual PraQice of the Princes
Oi the Geritiles. And exprefly faies Qn) ' That our Lord there dehorts
* that none amongfl: the Minifters of his Word feek Preeminence
' and Power. Secondly^ As for the Septuagint, he has produced no
Place where they take the Word in fuch an /// Senle. 'Tis none
of my Bufinefs therefore to confider where they do fo ; but this
is certain that they frequently ufe it in a good Senfe. For Inftance
Gen. I. 28. Have Dominion over the Fijhes of the Sea, Pfal. 72. 8.
He /ball have Dominion from Sea to Sea, Pfal. no. 2. Rule thou m
in the Mtdfi of thine Enemies', In all tbofe Places the Greek Word
ufed by Them is the fame with that in the Text. But will any
Body fay that Jdam'*s, Solomon^ or ChriJPs Dominion was to be Ty-
rannical. Thirdly^ Is that Place y^^i 10. 16. which relates the Os-
moniack's overcoming the Sons of Sceva the only other Place in all
the NewTelbmenr where the Original Word is ufed? 1 wifh
fome Body had helped Mr. Rhind to a Greek Concordance. For
L I Peter
( m] Exliortitur ne <iuis inter Miniftros Verbi fui cjuicijc Prscellcnciam cc I'otelUtem. Bcz* i«
Lotiim.
Si Defence of the Chap. IL
J. Feter ^. 5", where Minifters are forbidden to carry as Lords over
God^s Heritage the Original Word is the fame. Thus you fee
all this Criticifm is quite loft. But why did not Mr. R/;/W,when
lie was in the Criticizing Vein, obferve, that though the compound
Verb which Matthew and Mark life fignifie fometimes Violence and
Tyranny, yet that Luke'in the Parallel Place ufed the fim pie Verb,
which, however it may be fometimes applyed,yet in its own Nature
jfignifies only Domimon without the Superadd ition of Tyranny or VioU
ence. Why, I fay, did not Mr. Rhind obferve this ? The Reafon is
Plain, it would have made aginft him and quite fpoiled his Argu-
nient ; and why fhould a Man harm himfelf ?
6. He endeavours to make good his Glofs on the Text by Cri-
ticizing on the Word Euergetes which out Tranflators render i^^/?^-
faBors. * If, falthhe p. 57, thefeG^/?///^ Princes, whom their mean
^Flatterers firnamed Euergetes, were 7^?^^ of them Guilty of Viol-
* ence',. then doubtlefs the Authority, vi'hich wasexercifed by thofe
^' who were fo called is meant to be Tyrannical, and, in that Re-
* fped, 'tis that our Saviour forbids his Apoftles to Copy after them.
Now, that fome ofthefe who had this Sir name g\ytx\ them, did abafe
their Authority to the worft of Pufpofes, he proves by the Inftance
of Ptolemy VII. King of Egjp firnamed Euergetes II, v\ bo was
indeed a very ill Prince. This is a very deep Criticifm. But in
the Firft Place who fliall lecure us that our Saviour fo much as
alluded to any of thofe Princes that had born that Sirname, there
being no hint thereof either in the Text or Contexto adlj, Be
h that He did allude to them, yet who fliall fecure
US, that it was to fu,ch 2s were /// rather than fuch as were good of
them? ButitisNaufeous to difputeagainft aTrifBe, though there
were other Princes whom their Flatterers upon Occafion now and
then called Euergetes or BenefaElors in a Way of Complement, yet I
do not find a^j that bore that for their Sir&ame, fave two of the Race,
of the ^tolemeys in Egypt, And as the Second of them was very vitious,
as Mr. Rhind has obferved ; fo the fi^i/l of them viz. the Son ot Ptole.
mey Vhiadelfhus was a brave Man, engaged in a Juft War againft An-
tiochus Calltnicus for the Murder ofliis Sifter and her little Son, had
Succefsinit, and in Token of his Devotion and Gratitude ofered
Sacrifices to.ths, God of Heaven at '^erujalem,_ On which Account
Joje^hus
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government] 85
^ofephas (n) makes honourable Mention of him. Now, when there
were only two Princes that bare that6>;;rtw?,whereofas the one was
Bad, fothe other wasGood; why fhould Chriit allude only to the
111 0^0. For, to affirm he did fo, without proving it, is to beg the
Queftion.
7. Mr. Khind. argues 't' from * the Oppofitlon, which our Lor^ ftates
' 'twixt his own Example which he propofes for their Imitation, and
' that ofthe Princes of \\\Q,Gentiles which he forbids the Apoftles to
* follow. It cannot, faith he^ be faid without Blafphemy, that he
* put himfelf upon a Level with his Apoftles, with RefpeQ to Au-
* thority and JurisdiQion; and confequently that Authority which
* they were to exercife, in Imitation of him,does not import, a per-
* fed Equality among them inOppofition to that Imparity which
* obtained in the Heathen Governments. The Anfwer is eafie,
Mr. /</>///^hasmiftaken ("whether willfully or otherwifel fhall not
determine j the Defign of the Argument and the Way how ic
proceeds. For when our Lord commanded wr. 27.28. * Whofo-
* ever will be chief among you, let him be your Servant ; even as
* the Son of Mincame not to be miniftred unto, but tominifter.
He argued from thQ greater to the lejfer thus : For as much as / your
Lord and Mafter have humbled my felf to the bafeit Service, there-
fore jjiou rvho are indeed Servants^ and each upon a Level with other^ fhould
be afhamed to be thinking of or afpireing to be Lords and Matters
over one another. This makes our Saviour's Words Plain and In-
telligible, whereas Mr, Rhino's Glofs, inftead of extinguifhing,
would have enflamed their Ambition , by fuppofing it Lawfull for one
or two of them to Lord it over the Reft.
8. ' OnvLordy fatth he il?idy cannot be fuppofed to forbid in this
* Text fucha Subordination o( Rulers in the Church, as was that,
* which at that Time obtained in moftof the Genti/e States; fee-
' ing this were to condemn that Form, by which he thought fit
* the Church iliould be governed in the Days of his Flefb, which
* wa^ Monarchical. The Anfwer isfhort. i. We have already
heard M. .S^^^ owning that there was no Chriftian Church in Bei;^^
at that Time, confequently no Chriftian Governours, confequently
L 2 no
[n] Contra .■ pion. Lib. II. p. [milu] 84.4. Vide eciam Jullin. Hiil. Lib. XXVH- f p. /i?.
§4 Defence of the CFidp IL
xiD particular Form by which the Church was then governed. 2^/;,
fuppcfing both thQlmhe^nd the ^ive^tyhad been Gcvcrnours, yet
we have heard Dr. Whttby conteiTing that they were both veflcd
with xh^fame Power. There being then no Subordination of Paftors ,
no different Ordersof them under Chrift at thjt Time, itnecelTarly
follows that Chrifl's Words in the controverted Text, according to
Mr. Rto^'s Peremptor Sentence p. 61, ' Doubtleis, whatever Kind
* of Government obtain'd in the Church in the Daysof Chrifl was
' defigned to be perpetual, muft needs condemn fuch a Subordi-
nation in all Time coming.
Ladly. Mr. K^/W argues p. 60. That if the Senfe of our Saviour's
Words were not according to his Glofs, ' tis probable he would have
* flated the Oppofition,not 't wixt them and the Princes of the Gem ties ;
* but rather 'twixt them and the High Prieft, PrieftandLevites a-
*mong the Jews. 'Tisanfwered. Chrifthad the greateft Reafon to
State the Oppofirion as he did. He had the greateft Reafon notion
State it as Mr. Rhind thinks probable he would have doneupon Sup-
pofition of \\\^?Yesh)ttrhn Ssnfe. Firii, he- did Stare the Oopo-
iition 'twixt them and the Princes of the Gf;?///w,becaufe the Difcipfes
having a Notion of a Temporal Kingdom of the M#'.«j, and being
fwelled with the ExpeQation of Dignities in the Same*, our Saviour
thought it needful! to anfwer them agreeably to the Notion they h^d
entertain'd,and withal to infmuatstothemthat no one of them was to
expeQ any Superiority over the refl; in any Capacity Civilor Ecclefi-
aftica! ; but that they were all to be on a Level in Point ^i Authority.
i\nd thus inFaQweiind afterwards they were, though indeed on
.the Account o\ ^erfond -Excellehcies fome oi thi^mfeemsd to i>e P//'ars,
Secondly, He did fjot State the Oppofidon 'twixt them and th^Jew/fi
High Prie(^, Prielisand Levites, becaufe the Difciplesthemfelves did
not yet think of any other Church Government than what atprefent
obtained among the Jtjj'j, andChrif^did not find them yet ripe for
receiving any Intimation thereof; but thought it enough to give
ihem a general Rule to be obferved by them afterwards ; and
whereof, when it was to be put in Pra£l ice,, they would- eafily con-
ceive ihe Meaning, c^k^v t he irV/iderjt an dhgsivers opened ^Oin^ Things
brought tothdr Remembrance by the -Holy Ghoft which was to be com-
municated toihtm. This Thought is fuggcfled to us by Mr, Dod^
wdi
StCt V.'- V^tshyiximn Government. %^
n^eH(o), * The Apo(Tlcsthemrclves,/^//^ /'^jdo not fcem to have known
* any Thing concerning the Government oftheChiiich tilliheir
* Separation from ihc Syn?pogiies ; they were by Birth 7(;r:f and
' Zealous of the Law and CtUcfres of their Fsihers, and ilourLoid
* before ihst, had re\ ealedany Thing to them which looked ihat
* Way, that is toaChar^pe of GoiJerhn^ent, they had been in Hazr^id
' of revolting from, inliead ofcbeying him. i\rd iheicfoie our
* Lord dealt c^utiou fly with them, and would rotput nev.' Vv'ine
* into Old Bottles, nor Vihi!etheir Minds were yet alienated, bear
* in New Pwevelaticns upon ilicm concerning FaQsfrcm which they
* would haveiiadan Averfion.
And thus now I have conHdered every Thing Mr, Hhin^ has ad-
vanced upon that controverted Text; 2nd 1 hoj-e it fufficiently ap-
pears, that rot f^/?^ of his 1 Iwughts, nay nor ^7// ofihcm jointly are
of the lea fl: Force to wrtliit from the Presl;ynr/a??s, ortojuVlifie
the Glofshe hss put upon it : Fc r, befidesall hag been already fuggcft-
ed-; thatnotonlyihe Tjninn icd Extrcife , a s M r. R hind would, b ut
ihe D<?/7.'//;'ir7/2 itfelftoo, as the Presbyterians would, isdifcharccd by
that Text, is evidciit both from the Occr^fion of it and likewife from
our Saviour^ krj( x\ri CI a? afrtr. Tn //. Fi cm the Qccnjion of it which
v/ssthe Mother of ^i't'^^'t'i Children her asking a Been for her Sons.
How earneftfoever flie mirht be for their Promotion ; unlefs we
fhould fuppofe her to have been a Monfter of Women, and another
Jt zt6f/^ fl^e could not havebeenfo Impudent as to ask for them a
Pqwqv Q^ Domineerif'g Tyranicnlly over their Fellows. Could fhe have
got them raifsd to the Dominic/?^ ro doubt fiic had been glad to fee
them manage it vsrtuoufly and with Temper and Moderation : But
our Saviour would not allow \\\QDqmi?^h}i it felf, and fo there could
be neither f lace nor Temptation for the 7)r^;^^/>^^ ii\xr?.;//£' of ir. 6V.
tondlj. From our Saviour's known Chi-ja^or. He not only taught
LoyaU-y and a Regard to the Civil Powers, but gave tooa moli bright
and fliineing Example of it in hisPradlice. Was it confillent wij'i
jhis Character to reprcfent indeSniily ( which is much the fame
Tiling
[o] Parscnes. Ceft. 14. p. jS. Anrc fcccfTim a fynagogi?, ncc de regi.Tiine, rec de ipfo ^jreiTn, ipfi rcfci-
vifTevidentur Apofloli.--- Erant enim ipGoi-cu Judx'jpitrurumq c confiiccuduiuni i£|ii?ri]'jc ftiidiofi Si qnid
anrea picetscilH>L Djniinus quod esipeiftaie crederct'ir ; pcriciiiiim era: iic deticerciu potuis qiiam parereiu.-
Cauceer^oej^ic Dominur, nee viniim novum vafu credidit veceiibus, nee proiudc aheius animis noviis, oe
fadtis a <iuiba3 abtiorieban'r, ingefsit Revelationes.
8^ Defence of the Chap IL
Thinf^ withUnlverfally) the whole Princes of t]"e Earth as a Knot
of Tyrants connteraaing the Defign of then' Office which is the
Good and Happinefs of Mankind, by thdr Violence and Oppreffion ?
What elfecould have been the EBTca ofthis.butto prodL-ceinhisFol*
lowers an utter Averfion to Monarchy, and to make'emall State-
JVh/^os? This Senfetben isabfurd,and therefore ought not to be
put "" upon our Saviour's Words. And I cannot enough wonder
how Mr. RhirJ could flumble upon it. Had it dropt from fome
old Republicdr., the Matter had been the lefs; but in Mr. Rhmd^
who has made Loyalty fo great a Part of Religion, and has re-
commended it to the World in fo very pointed a Sermon^ 'twas an
unpardonable Efcape. To confirm my Thoughts upon this Texr,
let us hear Dr. Whitby on it. ' Nor do I \.\\\x\kJa!thhe,-\'Q\m^
* only he^r forbiddeth fuch Dominion as is attended withTyran-
« ny, Oppiefhon and Contempt of their Subjeds. FirH becaufe S,
* Luh ufes only the Simple Verbs which bear no fuch ill Senfe,
* idly^ Becaufe Kings and Governours were not always guilty of
* this Male- Adminiilration. And 3%, Becaufe Chrift does not op-
* pofe unto iheii Government a jull Dominion, but a Miniftry
f only.
And now upon the Whole I referr it to the Reader, if the Ar-
gument for Prelacy from its obtaining in Chrift's Days is not even
Ridiculous; when the greateft Epifcopal Wniers own there was no
Chriftian Church in Beiy?g at that lime, therefore no Subordination
of Paflors in ir, therefore no Prelacy. 6r fuppofing the Twelve
and the Seveniyh^A been Church Officers, yet that they had both
the fame Power, and fo it becomes an Argument for Parity,
f Anno:, on Matth. XX. 23.
ART.
Sed, V^ Trcshytcmn Government] 87
ARTICLE
Wherein Mr. Rliindv Proof for the aUiid In-
ftitution of Vrchcy from its being continued in
the Days of the A^ojlles^ and from a SucceJJion
in the Afoftolatey and from its having been con^
jf/rw^J^y Miracles, is examined^ From F. 61. to
P. 74.
UPON this I fhill T. Examine Mr. R/;WsTranfition,wbicIv
is indeed very Remarkable. 11. His general Redfoaings
from the jifh and Epifr!es. Jli. His particular Argumecr from a
SuccelTion inthe Apollolate. IV. His Demonftration tor the iJiVine
Right of Prelacy from its being confirmed by Miracles.
LI am to examine Mr. Rhi/iu^s Tranfiiion, which is indeed
very remarkable: 1 mean it would be fo in any orher Author,
though it is very familiar with Mr.RhiyJ. He, prefuming he
had proved That our Sa\'iour by His Authoriry eftdbltdicd the Im-
parity he pleads for, contends, not only that that Eftablifhment was
not Abrogate afterwards, but that even Chrift himfelf coisld not
abrogate it; For, faith he p. 6i, i^ would refldi odioujlyupn hisWif'
dornto hjive fettled a. Govenjr.-'iSin^ which mult be alm'ijt as Joon aliered
AS instituted. . It is indeed the knov^'n Chara^.er of the Generality
of the Writers on the £/-v'£-c/>i/ Side, that they diOatc their crude No-
tions with \\\z fame Miikrfull Air as if they were demonftraiing
one of £//t//a's Propofitions ; yet generaliy this Poficivenefs amounts
to no more than ill Manners, and therefore nwy either be neglected ,
or
88 Defence of the Qitp. //.
cr cbanifed with a little Raillery. But that a Nothing of a Crea-
ture (liould at every Turn give Meafures ro the Divine Wifdorn
is -InrunpO! table, and moii of all inthisGafe. For \[i. Whothar
lias any Reverence for our BlefTed Saviour will prefume to affirm
that bccnife he ufedone Method for conftituting the Cliir;ch,there«>
fo' e It W.5S inconfiiknt with his Wifdom to alter that Method in
Governi.ig Her when conllit'Jted ? 2^//. M. Dodwell^sNlio has
reafoned in ^Mtthjm.iticd Chain, has very proliKiy attempted to
proved/) That the Original Government of the ChrilHan Church
pot only might be, but a^ually iv^i altered. Yea that the Epifcopal
Co:-'[l'itutton of GoviYmnent^ nhich now obtaws^ is Uter than all the
Writings of the Neiv'rd'iament.andthercfoye is notto be fought far there. If
it was nocinconfiitent with the Wifdom oFChrift toalter theGo-
vernment of the Church from a Papacy to a meer Frelacyj'<^\\y fhould
it be fo toalter itjrom Prelacy to Presbytry? .:^dly. Mr. R^i/^i him-
feU muft needs confcfs that the Original Government of the Chri-
flian Church is altered. For by his own Principles ^there were
Bifliops in the Time of the Apoflles ; for Inftance, He has declared
p. 78. Timothy and Titus to \\2i^!Qbc^^n the ordinary a»d fxed Pre-
Uts of E^litius cmd Crete. Yet the Apoftles were ^/^f^^ Superiour
to them. But rww all BiQiops by Divine Right are Equal, and
have no Siiperiour above them. If then it is confiftent enough
with, the Wifdom of Chrifl: that there fhould be at this Day B/-
j!joi>s without fuperior Apoftles, notwithftanding it was othervvife
at the Beginning, How is it inconfiftcnt with his Wifdom that there
fliouldbe Presby ers \M\i\\o\M^\y^Qnox Bijjjops'^ But then Laftly tocom*
p!e.u all, Ii Mr. Rhlnd^s Adertion be true, then Prelacy is undone
for ever. For it has been already proved from tho Epifcopal W litQrs
of the heft Note, that our Lord did not eftablifli an Imparity, that
the Tvelve were equal among thcmfelves, the 'Severity among them-
felves, and ih^Tmlve and the 6Vw;?ocompleatly equal without any
Subordination of the latter to the former. If then ih^firfi Inditution
could not be altered, Parity mult obtain forever.
II. I am to examine Mr. /item's general Reafonings from the A^s
and
[p] PaixT)cs.Sc£^, 13. p. 5-4. -Hodierni Regiminis Ecclefiaftici Conftitutio, licet emanark ab Apoflolis,
eft taincii icnpus N. T. omnibus rcc€utior,& proiade noii ibi expeilanda.-.-
SeS". V*' Presbyterian Government. - 89
and Efifties, -He cannot findin his Heart to enter on 'em^tiU be liave
fpent a P/»^^ the 62 m Philippicks af,ainft ihQ Ptesbyteri^fu'^QX \l-\d^
invincibUOhflinacy which will not yield even when he /ei/f//i L\'/?>(?;;-
y?r4//V^i again ft them. Hard hearted Creatures they / But Mr. K/j/;2^
mull e'en comfort himlelfwi'hthis, how fmall foever his Succefs is
likely to be, that yet he is in the Way of his Duty, lihall give tha
Reader every Word of h's Realor/w-s, that he niay judge whedier his
party mult notbi ( to ufe his own Courtly Phrafe ) an Uiplmte H:rd
indeed that keepsicfelfin Countenance by them. The Mis and E-
ft files y friith he pv6^. favour the t'reshyii^rians as little as the four Gplpells.
Nay, if thev favour them asmuch^ ihey are not likely to be great
Lofers. ' Thefe Acls and Epijlles.aUs he;^:Q fo far from intimating that
' the firft EftabliQiment was altered by the Apoftles^thaton theconira*
* ry they.plainly fhew .its Continuance. Why then Adieu F^^/-'J9 for
eveT : For the firft Eftablifhment was only oi the Apoftles, they were
the firft Otiicers in the Church, for a while the only OiEcers, snd ftill
adted in a perfect Parity. ' Don't the Alfand Efipss^ proceed he ^ all
* along make Mention cfieveral Orders of Men who were undifpured-
* ly Chijrch Oi]icers,that is,who werefolemnly feparated for Ecckfiaf-
* tical Offices by the Impofition of Hands ? And doa't they affign to
* e ich their Diffpent Powers ? lanfwer, not all along ; for, as I have
faid juft noWjthere was at firft but^;^? Order viz.thatof the Apoftles,acd
even thef^ too folemnly feparsted.for their OiBce without Imporuion
of Hands, at leaft we read nothing of it in the Scripture. What^ he
goes on, dnes more frequently occur, thro* theJefacredWritir;gs^ than the
Misfit ion that isniadeof Presbyter s am D'e aeons y the one Suborainateto ihe
ether, andoltheApnfiles Paramount to them ^//. ''Tisanfw ered. There
is indeed frequent Mention ^i Presbyters 2iVi^ Deacons^ the one Subor-
dinate to the other, and of the Apoftles Paramount to ihem all, but
how came he to lofe Prelats in his Enumeration, who OLiglit 10 have. '
beeninferted'twixt the Apoftles and Presbyters? Were there coaG
fuch in the Day s of the Apoftles ? If nor, what hath the Churcli to.do
with them now ? If there were, why did he drop them in his Cata-
logue in this PI ice when he averrs it afterward, tho'ut theijiftance
of 16 Paiges f that Tunoth^ and T/tus were the crdhary and.jixed P/elats
e/ Epheius ^^i;^ Crete. The Reafon of this Artifice is obv«oi?5. 'Hie
infer* ing frd-zrihi^re woulci have quite fpoiled hisReafoning; it
sivould have made four Orders of Officers in the Apoftolick'-iiRieij,
M ■: r ; ;vjz.
90 Defence of the - Ghap; . //,
viz. Appftles, Prelats, Presbyters and Deacons, and if there ought
to be as many different Orders now as there were 2it firfi, which is the
Scope of Mr. RhM^s Reafoning, and without which it fignifies no«
thing ; then Vrelacy is loft : ; For they have but three different Orders
among them viz. Prelats, Presbyters and Deacons, for which they
do fo much as pretend Dtvim Right. But to go on with Mr. Rhwd^s
.Reafonings. What though the J^^i and £/»///« make Mention of
ti>e diiFcrent and Subordinate Orders of Apoftles, Presbytersand Dea-
con's, what follows ? Whjy faith he, could one wijh a clearer Proof thm
this, fOjevince, that there was theft an.lmfArity among Church Officers, I an-
fwer, none. For every l^resbyterian owns that there was^k^viz. in
the Days of the Apoftles an Imparity not only among the Church Of-
ficers, jbut Paftors too. No doubt the Apoftles were fuperior to ths
Tresifjters, But he has a Second InkrencG to make viz. ^ That the
* famealfois a moft clear Proof that tliat Imparity was of Divine In^
' ftitutiou. The Pr^j^j^fm^/ grant it: For the Apoftles were cer-
tainly aQed by the Divine Spirit. His Third Inference which com-
pleats the whole is,that confequentlj that Imparity viz. of Paftors, ought to
be ftllcontinmd. But here the Presbyterians and Mr. Rhind part Ways %
for,tho' the Pnshyterians acknowledge that the Apoftles were fuperior
to the Presbyters ; Yet they affirm that a Superiority among Paftors is
Unlawfull»ojv, becaufe the A^o^o\2iiQW2iS2.n extrordinaryO^cQ not
tobe continued, th^.A^o^tXt^ extraordinary Officers not tobefucceed-
ed to, except in the Ordinary Fundions, Preaching, Difpenfing the
Sacraments and Govssning the Church, in which they are fucceded
toby every Minifter, , . And this brings me to examine
III. His particular Argument from a Succeffion in the ApoftoIate»
He exprefly denys p. 64 &c that * theApoftolate was an extraordi-
* nary Office, cjr that the; Apoftolick Government was Temporary,
^ and offer ts /^^^ the Bifliops of the Church, w^i«»/>^ Prelats as fuperior
" /f^Pr^i^j/^^n, do fueceed them therein^ Is this true? F/>/?, Davenam
Bifbop of 5<^,r«w not only deny s but difprovesit (^), Multitudes of
others of the Church of England do the fame. 1 he Church of Rome
a Society ofa very large Extent, of a long Standings and fuch as has
produced not a few Wife and Great Men exprefly contraditf it, deny-
ing
£ I 3 1 flColofs p,^.. j».
Sed. VJ Presbyterian Government} 91
ingthatanyof the Apoftles had SuccefTors fave Pf^er in the Papal
Chziv. Secofjdly. Which muft conclude Mr. Rhi»d, M. Dodwell (r)
Himfelf hasdenyedit, and aiTerts that/^.^Q^c? (?/^/^^ Apoftolate
failed with the Ufi A f oft le^ and that never anyof themhadaSucceffor but
JuddiStheTraitor. Did this efcapeM.Do^iW/ through Inadvertency ?
He repeats it over and over and over again in different Places. But
Thirdly^ which is worft of all, Ignatius himfelf, who is both Stem and
Stern of the EpifcopalCaufe^/iv/yj makes the Presbyters to fuccesd
to and reprefent the Apoftles, but the Biihops never, (s) * I exhort
' you that youftudy to do all Things in a Divine Concord^ the
^ Bifhopprefiding in the place of God, your Presbyters in the Plac©
' of the CounciloftheApoftles. (0 A^^o be fubjed to your Presby*
* ters as to the Apoftles ©fJeiusChrift ourHop«. (v) Reverencethe
* Presbyters as the Sanhedrim ofGod and College of the Apoftles. (x)
* Continue infeparable from Jefus Chrift our God and from the Bi-
^ fhop and from the Commands of the Apoftles. He that does any
* Thing without the Bifliop and Presbyters and Deacons is not
* pure in his Confcience. (7) Follow your Bifhop, as Jefus
* Chrift the Fatherland the Presbytry as the Apoftles. I hope then this
Matter is abundantly Plain, fo far as human Teftimony is needfull.
But then L/<//y. If to all this we add the Judgment of the Scripture,
it may be put Deyond DouDt. i din indeed amazed to find any
Man who has read the frft Chapter of the J^s o( ihQ JfoTiles
plead for a continued Succeffion in the Apoftolick Office. Judds
had difpofed of Himfelf, and the Vacancy was now to be fupplied ;
the requifits neceffary for qualifying one to ftand Candidate for the
Place are fet down t^erf. 21.22. ' Wherefore of thefe Men which
' have Com pan ied with us, all the Time that the Lord Jefus went in
* and out among us : Beginning from the Baptifm of John, unto
' that fame Day He was taken up from us, muft one be ordain'd to
' be a Witnefs with us of His Refurredion. In which Words we
are plainly told that none could fucceed into the Apoftolate, but
fuch as bad known Jefus before His Death, and feen Him after Hi^
M 2 Re:
[1] Defecerac cum ultimo Apoftoloetiam Apoftolacus officium ; cum nulliuuquam prxterquam Juds pro^
ditori, fuiScerencur Apoftolorum fucceflbres. Parasnef. Sea-6. p. ii. Seft. 15. p. ^2. Se£l. jo. p. 68. L^J :*
Ep. CO Che Magnes. Seft. j. [c] Ep. co che Trail. Se^. a. [v] Ibid. SeSt. 3. [xj Ibid. Scft. 7. [yj Ep- to "?
^»V':n*«»£r Seit.7, fidu^iyii^^j, byDr.irrf^if'. "
r:
gi^ Defence of the Chap.//.'
liefurreQIon and at His Afcenfion. If any Man now living, BU
fhopor any other, can be found thus qualified, we are content He
be efteem'd a Succeffor in the Apoftolate, but otherwife itisa very
ihamelefs Thing to talk of it.
But Mr./l/;/W is of a diflPerent Judgn:)ent, and therefore is refoly-
ed at any rate to difprove the AfTcrtion, that the Apoftolate was an ex*
traordifjaiy Office^ or that the Apoflolick Government was Temporary* I
fhall examine what He' has advanced for this Purpofe. .
• Fkft. He will not sllow it to have been extraordinary or Tempo-
rSry upon any Account, becaufe it was not fo upon one particular
Account, viz. The A^o'^\q^ bei/jg blej^eA with extraordinary Gifts..
The Reader may poflibly fulpeQ that i miireprefent Him; but take
it in His own Words. ' The Apoftles^ faith He p, 64. were indeed
'.bleiled with lundry extraordinary Gifts, which proves them to
''hsve been extraordinary Fe»funs; and it was highly necelTary
*' They fhould be fuch. dm it does not at all follow from this^ that
'the Afoftolate was an extraordinary Office, or that the Apcftclick
* Government was Temporary .— . But who can. dlicern the
leaft Shadow of an Argument in this? Where is the Fresbyteriart
who ever faid that thefe extraordinary Gifts wherewith the, Apoftles
w^ere blGjOftd are W^';?^ an Argument that Their Office, was extraordi-
nary ? What Presbyteriar* ever dcuycti tnat Presbyreib au\\ t>cac.::}nb-,
yea and fome of the Laity were fomerimes blsiTed with Them ?
The Presbyterians own thefe extraordinary Gifts were neceffary for
the fuccef>full-DifGbarge of the ApolfcKck Office, 1 hey own that
fome of 'em were- peculiar to the Apoitles, particulafly the giving
of the Holy Ghdft in His extraordinary L7:?/ij'/A^'^f 4; but befidcs
thefe They had an immediat Cull^ an U'-ivajd CorHyynjjioKi^ and were
under an i^//^/////-/^ Conduct^ all'\^hich concurred; to make them ex-
tvaotdinary Officers, and in which every Body fees. They nenher
ate nor can bt? fucceeded to. !f any one.now in Being c^n lay claim-
to thefe Charaders, We fhall allow Him to be a Succeifor to the,
Apoftles, andcveu difpenfe^ vviih the ■^ther extraordinary Gifts. .
Notwithltandmg this Reaioning»oF His was fo ill founded, yet
He goes on tohaiapgt.e ufon it. * if, fanhhe ibid, the l^resby mans
* 'Will Jidve iheie extraordinary Gifts tobeaii Argument of "an eX-
\ traoidmary Office, yet muli they at ihe iiune. . Tiaie gtunt, thu
thut
Sed. V", Presbyterian Government: 95
' that Office fhould continue as long as thefe Gifts were NeceflTiry,
' at Iw-aftas long as they aaually lafted. And upon this ConccfTion
He atiempts.to prove p.6j.6^. by the Inftance of Me/ito BiPnopof
Sardis^ htnaus BiHiop of Lyons^ Gregory the Wonder-Workcr Bi-
fliop of Neocjef'iyia^ Cyprian Bifhop of Carthage^ and by the Telli-
mony of Eufthius that thefe Extraordinary Gifts lafted for fcveral
Ages; and from thence inferrs that confequently Epifcopacy mu(t
have lafled fo long. This Rea/ofiing, faith- He, is good emupjj, ad
Hominem, and does fafficiently expofethe Wsakmjs of. the Preibyteri.in
Evafion, But it is neither good ad Hom^vem nor ad Rem, nor ex-
pofesany Tiling but Mr. Rhif^d's Want of Arguments. F/r/? it
is not Good ad hlominem : For the Presbyteriarjs make no fuch Eva-
iion ; as we have already heard.- Nor ■ ^esondly is it good ad
Rem: For the Inftancesof ivliraculous Billiops which He has infill-
ed on are very Injudicioufly chofen. I do not deny that extraordi-
nary Gifts were continued in the Church even down to the Third
or Fourih Century, or longer; if Mr. Rhif?^ Plsafe ; but then, fo
fas as relates to their having been poir,:iTed by Bifhops, He has had
the ill luck to pitch upon the moft fufpe^ed Tnitances. Firft. As
for- MelitOi This was the Eunuch v/ho was BilTiop of Sardis. I fiiall
eafily believe v/hat Tenulhan as cited by S. ^efem and Folyoraies as
cited by Ejiftbius fay of Hun viz. That; He was a Man Divid) ii.fpiy.
ed]f and in all Things diretied hy the Jjflitus and Suggesiion of the Holy
GhoH, if no more be meant thereby, than that H: wis a M-tnofey^U
Tient Piety. For theSmrit of Chrift dv*'eils and a8s in every Man
th:tt is Chrift's ; Audi think 'lis plain Polycrates in Euftbius meant no
More: For he fays only that He waskd'in all Things by the Qnice of
the Huly Spirit, But if Mr. Rhind will needs have us to underhand
thereby, th<2t He was in all Thi^sgs under an infallible Qonduti^ I a (Tare
Httn fc do not believe it: For the Apoftles themfelves were not al-
ways fj; even Peter fometimes Ifept awry, and\valked not with a
ftraight Foot Gal. 2. 14, and I hope to mak-s Mr.-Rhma Himftlf
confchihit Good' Mcllto was wrong in fome Things. . The Church
of£«^/.w^ never keeps fi-sf/tT upon the Day of the full Moon,butupcii
the. Sandiy after, when it falls upon a working Day ; or that D^y
fevcn-nightjwhen it falls upon a Sunday, But i^6'7/^(? aUvay^kept Eajitr •
aitt^r ibxQjimjh Falhion upofi tlie very Day otthe fuUA4ooi),wheiher
ic-
p4 Defence of the Chap. IL
it fell on Sunday or Saturday &c. and Poljcratei in Eujebius cites
Him forthat very Purpofe in Oppofuion to Pope Vi^or, 'Tis Plain
then that M^//Vo was fometimes Wrong, or the Lhrndioi England
is. Mr. Rhwd may chufe as likes Him beft. Secondly, As for Ire^
t)£Us'^\{ho^o{ Lyoi7S. My, Rfm/d faies that He converted many Pa"
gans in his Diocefi by the Miracles ivhich He wrought , but He has not in-
ftanced any of them, nor told us where the Relation of them is to
be found, and I am not willing to condefcend, left I fhould be fu"
fpeQed to do it too favourably for my Self. He tells us indeed both
from Irenaus Himfelf and Eufihius that miraculous Gifts and Powers
rvere very Comrnon in His Time ; but what faies this to hen^ush Share
in Them? When Mr. Rhind is more particular I fhall be fo too.
Thirdly^ As for Cyprian, All that Mr. Rhind ailed ges is, that He
ajiures us concerning Himfelf that He rvas bleffed with uncommon Mea*
fares of the Divine Spirit^ and fo I believe h every Good Chrifti-
an, and do think Mr. Rhind was very Wife m not being morepar-
Ycular upon CypriarPs Miraculous Gift^. But then Laflly^ Gregory
Thdumaturgus or the Wonder- Worker is Mr. Rhind\ great Man,
yea even a Second Mofes for Miracles. Well, what Vouchers does
He bring for them f Two indeed of a very great Name viz.
Gregory Nyffen in the Life of the Wonder-Worker, and S. Baftl de
Spirit u Sm^to Cap. 29. But v.^hat Credit is to be given to them?
In the ill ft place hear the great Spanheim {z,). ■'■ The Learned,
^ faith He ^ deferVedly doubt about the Canonical Epiftle afcribed
*• to the Wonder-Workeri But much more about the Prodigies and
' Miracles which, almoft without End, are attributed to Him by
^ Nyfien in His Life and by Baftl Himfelf; whence He got the
^ Name of the WonderWorhr ditidi another Mofes. Certainly many
' Things in A^jf/^^;? breath the Credulity even of an old Wife.
Thus Spanheiw. 2dly, Erafmus, in the Epiftle Dedicatory prefix-
ed to Rafil\ Works, rejetls the latter half of His Book de Spiritu
Santto as Spurious, and at the end of C^f. 14. obferves on the Mar-
i^in, that here the Author Changes, Coniequently the 29. Chapter
which
[2.] Ii.trod. ad Hjft. Nov. Tefl. Se£t. III. p. 33:. De Epifcola Canonica eidem adfcripta, merino acnbiguns
Eriiditi. At multo magis dc piodigijs ec miiaculis, piopemodum fine fiue, qua; illi a Nyjleno in cjusvica,
.^: Pa/Tim a 5.i/r/'o ip,'.) &c inbuiinnir. Vmlc ThmmtttuY^i iioaicn ec alterius HQfis, Mulu certe apud
.l^/fTcnum a:ulem_ tiuandam creduliwceui fpiiaic.
Se&.F. Presbyterian Government] 95
which Mr. Rhwd Infifts on is of no Credit, ^dly Cohra Church
of England Divine and lometime Fellow of Brazen Nofe College,
Ojf/^;-S, proves (/«) from the Body it felf of that 29. C/^^/^/er that
it is Spurious. And Laftly, which is worft of all, DodmllWim-
felf ( 6 j reprobates thefe Dreams and Miracles of the Wonder-Work"
er. Was not now Mr. Rhind very well provided with Miracle-
working Bifhops when thefe were the bed He could pitch on.
Secondly. Mr. Rhind having vainly fpent ten Pages in pleading for
aSucceflion in the Apoftolate without the lead Limitation, or drop-
ping fomuch as one Syllable for explaining himfelf ; at length p. 70.
He tells us; that by * the Apoftolick Office, abftradting from it all
* AQ,c\d^Qn\.2i\Sy he 77ieans that Superiority of Power with which the
* Apoftles were invefted in the Ordination of Inferior Church
* Othcers, and in Governing them and the Church; A^dphads
^ that it was not extraordinary in this Refpt^cl ; and asfuchto ce?.fe.
But the Prelats (fuppofing there were then any fuch ) were Church
Officers inferior iotliQ Aportles^the Apoflles were invelkd with a Supe-
riority of Power in the Ordination oUhem, I ask now whether that 6'««
priority -W2i^ Ordinary or extraordinary. If Ordinary, then there
ought ftill to be Officers >S.7ft^rif?r to Bifhops. If e^-traordinary, tlKa
tliQ Superiority of Power with which the A|'oftles were inverted in
the Ordination of Inferior Church Officers, and in Governing them
and the Church mult be extraordinarytco, I challenge Mr. Rhmd
and all his Party to take off this by a fufficicnt Anfwer.
Thirdly, He argues p. 72. * If that Form by which the Church
* was gbverned in the Days of the Apollles, be in all Refpeds
* as good, and in many undeniably better than any other, then
' I think I may fafely conclude, that it never ought to be altered.
If bAv. Dodweilh Judgement be of any Weight, then this Realoning
is horridly falfe .• For he teaches Cc) Thar the Form of Govern-
ment which obtained in the Days of the Apoftles was altered,
notwithftanding
[ ;z] Cenfinaquovuiidam Script, ver. p. 125. [6] DifleiT. IV. ia Cypr. Mum. i6. f <r j Parx'ief. Se.l.
55. p. i8q. 181. Dlim- Coiliger.c-: ciTcnc ec pian.:andx Ecclef;?:, adiTioduin urilis era: Piimiuus lUc Eccle.i.i;,
Hi'ei-ofolymitana:} — — ^-Et quo ktius CoUegij Apoftolici et F ■•Hcopi' Hierofojymitani patint audoiius (dum
earn prorfus i;ifallibile.m eU'e contlabac) eo er.uetiainntilior'b.jno Ecclefiaiunj omnium publico. Id iane Jo-
cecHe^efippus, :anti per I-LTJicncos piodirc 111 piibliciiui ik 11 Aiifos, Dum unius .Et.Jel;a: fentehti* Diojnari,
fpesiuilia dcindeeflec iii ab aliqua alia eccklii iccipeieiuiir. Et qiiidem ad fid«m piopagandam ucihor
' ci'ac umus ecclefis aucoritas (laiz aliarum omnium longe iiyeiiue Poniiuareuir, • ■
o6 Defence of the Chap IL
notwithftandlng that it was better cakuhtc^ov gat her hg and plaf/f^
ing Churches, {ox fuf^reghg Heresies, for fropagating the Faith, for
th'e ptiblick Good of ail the. Churches, than that which took place ^ter-
ward.
Laflly. ' U, faith He p. 72, thePm^j/w^/? were defigned to be
^ the Standing Form of Church Government, it wou'd leem to
' reflet dijpitragwgly on theWifdom ^fChrisi andhis Jpoftles^ that ihey
* could not makeit ferveall the Purpofcis for which fuch aGovern-
' ment ought to be appoiated ; but that 10 fupply itsDefeQsjthey mud
* uflieritinwithaForm, not only incorifillient with it, but which
' alfo in AfierAges wou'd be declared an unfupportable Yoke. Is
' irtobe fuppofcd, if they hadforefeen thd^i Partty would be ever
* after tlieiiueli Form of Government in the Church, or that -it
' couMbe ufeiullinit, that any other wou'd have at allcbiain'd?
* No. Or was there any Neceffny that any other fliou Id obtain ?
* Doubtlefs none at all. Is not this ^ very mannerly Harangue ?
Mr, RhM muft Difcipline both Chiift and his Apoftlesintbtheic
Duty, andieachtheuTi what was Con fi (lent with their Wifdom,
what v;oul 1 feflicf difpAragr^ly upon it. But admitting it were man*
.mrljj Is there any Truth in it? No, not one S) liable even accor-
£ling to tlie Principles of his own Mafter the Great Dodwell, ac-
cording to whom the Apoftlcs did not appoint Several Orders of
.Men, as lAv.Rhifid alledgcs, for the Work of the Miniftry, but
one Order only viz. of Simple Ffesbyters. Plainly Mr. Di?^W//'s Ac-
'Countoi the Matter is this, * That the Bifliop of yey^/^/^/^ (as we
^ kiz's.alreadj ol/fer'vcd) was Primate-of the Chrillian Church all the
' World over. That the Church of Jer^/aiem by her Itinerant Mif-
' fionaries exerccd the v*^holc Difcipline in all the Chrifiian World (a),
* That thefe Itinerant Miffionaries (0 whether Apoftles or others,
^ \VQ\Q extraordiKary Officers. That wherever they came, they ne-
* ver oidainedany Bidjops but Simple /^rcsbyters only with ^Chiir»
^ yun i.mong ^hemfor Orders liU^e j ail which had mdeed a Power
' ■ . of
[d j.Hxcergo, cum itr. ij ;-.r.'!;.i:c>jnr,, facile inde colligimns, uiaicnm fiiifTe, yi hoc univerro imervallo,
Chratiai i5on)nibusunitat;5 I'rincipiiim, Epifcopum Wterofolymitanum. I'rimis ai^em temporibus vix rcie
alii poxfiarcra in obiioxias Ectlefix Wiefofolym'it.i-.-.s, Eccledas exeicuerunc quain EccleJia: UieyofulymJtana, Mi-
iiiUii muTi Hirrufjlymis ad resconim i'l pmcbus .iciuorioribu.-. procurandas. Parancf.%eQi. lo. p. 5-5, si. [ e ]
.Nam nbEy.truo di)i.triJj abiciwe conftitata liinc EccicfiarumexterarumPresbyceii, ; Extr^ordimriqrum autem
RcJcon-.tniumi-aosratixlitcrcipixa^iiofcuiuApoltolos. /6/i. , '
Sed. V^ Vrcshytcmn Government] 97
* ofpreachingtheWord,anddirpea{ing the Sacraments, butneither
they nor their Chairman were to touch the Government with one of
th«ir Fingers. Plainly ' they had no Power toexau^orate or de-
* poftjijny of their Number how Criminal foever, nor tofurrogate
* new Presbv ters in Place of fuch as dyed, nor to exclude any from
^ the Communion, nor to reftore fuch as had been excluded though
I never fo penitent (/).
This Eltdbli!hment continued till after the Deflru6tion of Jerufal-
em and the Death o{Simeo-/2 rhe Son oiCleophas. At length about the
YearCVI. the Name of Btjhop before common to all Presbyters was
appropriate to one in each Presby try. Andthis ivas thefirjl Tear, faies
he-j-, i.AjeiUng Efijcofacj,
'J'he hifh tp thus terup was, if we will believe Mr. D^t^jv^//, en-
dued with ri fwmgeing Po a er indeed. ' The difpenfing all Rewards
* and Puniihments m the Chriftian Society was in his Hands A-
* LO\'E; in hib Hands was the WHOLE Government, and that
* Legiflotive Power that is Competent to the Church and thatwith-
* out a RlVALor Mate {g), Yeafo uncontroulable washis Power,
- that tho' he might caft himfelf out of the Church by his Schifm, Here-
fie or Sacnfceirjg to Idols ; in which Cafe the Epifcopal College might
fupply his Plrice with another, yet it was not in the Power of that
College, muchlefs of his Presbyters, nay not of any Creature to de-
pofe him, how Immoral foever he were 'n his Life^ how ill foever
he governed the Church, but he was to be left to the Judgment of
God alone .(/j). '1 his was the Ignatian, this the Cjpnamck Biihopy
.this the Hpilcopacy thsit Jbou^'d always obtain (i),
N I
ff) Paia:iief. SeiSi. lo. p.32. 3^- Munijs fane Ecclefiaium publicis obeiindis ita vacabar, ut ramen Difci-
plmx partem nullam auc Regirniuis adminatrarinr.. Nee legimus unquam ab his Eccleriaium PrCobyiciis feu
exaufloiatos, cum ita mererer.fjr, Piesbyteros ; fen novos in Demortuorum loca fuiFectos. Nee pivlfum
aliquem Communione, nee horum Prsbbytcrioium decieto reftirutiim.
f Ibid. 5'fcr. 25. p. 101. Noil longe, ut opiiior, abcrrabimus fi Anr.um Conftitiiri Epifcopatus primoridialetn
ftacuamus Chrifti CVI. ut fcilicec fuerit Anno illo paulo vel Antiquior vtl Recentior.
(gj Ibid. Sect. 37. p, 17^- Sic penes SOLUM Epilcopuni ciunt Ibcietatis Chnfliana: Pr:einia omnia atque
Vxnx. Indefequetur penes eundem effe vifibilis Ecclefix Regimen Oi^NE, Poccllatemque, qualii in hac Souc-
tace locum haiiet, Legislatuiam. E: quidem fine AlM\JLO.
( h] Ihid. Sect. j^-z. -p- i^z. Nee opus eiat Jnuice qui eum exua:, fed quo fcdcs illius antea vacua fupplea-
ttir. Tale Crimen erat Idolis facrifitafse.--. Tale Crimen erat Hxiefis,— Siinilis eiaccaufa Scifmatis.— liaque
fcnrcn-ia nulla opus efiKjua; illosejiciac ex Ecclefia, vel exuat OtHcio. Hiicufqiie ergo nulla clt Poteflas in li-
pifcopos, Sed vero nullas legimus his tcmponbus Epiicoporum dcpofuiones propier Criinuia qi;a; non Potcf-
cacem ipfam Epifcopalem (ult'iileiint. Nullas propter Morum vitia lola Nulias propter Eccicliam male ad-
miniflratam. [ij IbiJ. Sect. -^y.p. 176. Rectc ergo fine Epifcopu Ecclefiainntquidem elTe poflb cenfuic 7^-
itatius S(if.^o.p.iB6.fupyem.j,enim, in fua quemque Ditione, Chi irt<ique SOLI obnoxios Epifcopos agnokic
ihi SCyfiriatius.Si'ct.).:^. p. 24c. Bgno heie; Kejormatioms publico," fiL^ikopi pnni.vviwily^uimjunbuj le-
ftaurencur.
^8 'Defence of the Chap. It
lam -fully perfwaded that this DodwelUan Scheme, fofar as it Nar-'
rates the towers of Biiliops, is the moft extravagant, chimerical and
falfe ; yea indeed the mofl: fcandalous to Chridianity that ever was'br
perhaps will beheard of; . but let his Followers lookto that the bed
Way they can : Only 'tis plain that, fo far as M. DoawelPs Judgment
or Authority reaches, Mr. Rhim'^s Argument is utterly loft : , And
the F/rH Form ofGovernment cert^^inly r^^fht be altered ; becaufcj
by the preceeding Scheme, itadually n;^i altered. lam then long-
ing after this Reprefeniation to hearwhat Jiid^ment Mr. Rhi^d will
pals upon his above Reafonings.
I fliould now proceed to the next Particular, but I crave leave
e're 1 ^o further to make anObfervcor two..
In the Firft Place I obferve that there is nothing the Epifcopal
Authors, and Mr. Z^/;/;?^ as much as any, more f<equeni!'/ and wil-
lingly nide into than Harangues againft a Government by Parity^
Here they lay out all their Colours, exert their utmoft Eloquer-ce,
and even bear down their Reader with a Torrent of Rhetorick. But
I hope by this Time the Reader is abundantly convinced that
thefe fame Harangues againft Parity avQ very fenfelefs Things. For,
J>Vy?, by the former Account from M. Doumll we have heard that
Presbyters had not the jeaft Share in the Government, and that the
WHOLEGovernment wasin the BiOiop's Hands, and in his A-
LONE. Secoyjdly. . the fam.e M. Dodweli allures us, and he is certainly
right in it, that all Bifhops were originally equal ■ By Divine Right
are fo, andcontinued to be fo till towards the Reign ofCo^(la»=.-
tf^ethQ Great that Archbijhofs and Metrofoiitms were brouglit in, not
i]pon any Divine Warrant, but by Pactions among themielves {k)^
l/jird/y, he allures us in like Manner, , thiit the Church in each
Nation and Province was governed by the F.piicopal College {/J, and
that too aoXingimi Parity, Fo^d'thh, * That the QidF^inij of all
* »Bif]]o;^s (mj was moft confiftent even with a Bourirniug Oifci- •
; •plineboEhofF^i//7.and-1<f^/?/i?t/'j5 and that the very fariij it felf
would :
[k] P.ry««f/;. i'fft. 4.0I p. iS+. Sequiturergo, qaxcunque deinceps obtinueiiic Imparitas, earn omnfirn ,
fipguloiutn Epiicopoium p^vSis cfle uibuendum, tamun(!lcmqiie valere quaiutnn illu VAlenc paiTu. •'l^amdiu
obuniifxic /'d/(r/if flat uere difficile eli, toe piimxvis mouumends'depeiHicis.' Siii'picor aut-em outuiuiile ;'.d tern-
j>oia.isTeConjluMtiiii. {\) One FncHhooi. Pietace. j-fCf, 8. {m).F'ti a,uf SsSu'^g. Sic mhil i.bitul.itquo minus,
in hac ipfa Epilcoporum jmnium Paz/r^fc,: vijitac tamen Dilci.iliiia cam Fidci, quam Moair.u conieiKicndffima '
Furitascene '//i iuesili»s.,omii9.s .abiiicufactat, im* (^Typlioicwuiwi, c,\ vsuwlauai'-*, vel ej£ iuu'idu licps .
J^riiinriit' *N -^ ^ v * j . "•' •'' A,.
Oliuntui.
Scd:. V. Presbyterian Government. c§
* would talce away all thefe Contentions which often arife from
^ Worldly Pride, Emulation or Envy. Is it not then plain that the
Government of the Church Univerfal, and the Government of every
National Church was and ought to he by Parity ? And what then
fignifiC all their Declamations againft Paritj? Will they not equally
iarvQ che Prtstyteria/is agaiiift an Ep^fcopal Parity, as they do the Epif.
xopaluyjs again It a Freshyurixn Parity ? Or is Parity fo N imble a thmg
as to aker its Mriture according as iho Side is that efpoufes it? I
would then advif^j our Epifcopal Brethren to refervc their Harangues
on that Subject till they hear of a new Edition of the Fi?rw^/^ ()r4-
ton^ ; for though they import nothing in the Controverfie of
Church Government, yet they may be worth their Room;/;^rf;
and pofTibly be ufefull to fome School Boy of a Barren Fancy to fur-
uiih out his Or^f/^« with.
In \\\Q SecundVhcQ^ What a very Jefi: do the greateft Authors on
the Epifcopal Side make themfelves. Dr. Hammond in innumer-
able Places (n) will have us believe that the Apoliles at firfl: or-
dained no Meer Presbyters but Bifjffs only. No, faith Mr. Dod^
well J the Apoftles at firfl: ordainM no Bifljops but fimpie Presbyters
only. Here are the two greateft Champions of the Caufe by the
Ears together on the moft Material Point of the Controver fie. What
can the Presbyterians do in the mean while but gather the Spoil,
which, I think, very plainly falls to their Share which foever of
'em two gains the Victory. For if i)\\ Hxmmond be right, the Pref.
byierians cannot be ^A^rong', a Bijhop without Presbyters under Him
being the Lkeft Thiog in the World to a ?resbytertm Minifter.
But if Mr. Dodwell is right, the Vresbyteriarjs clearly gain the Caufe;
there being no Mention of E/>//>o/?/z/ Government: in the New Tefta-
tnent; and the Year of Chriit CVI being the fin^i year of its Setle-
nenr. For iny own Part I am pcrfe:tly convincid that the tipoftles
ordain'd no Vresbyters but fuchaswere Bi/Jjops too in the lull Scrip-
ture extent of that Word, that is, who h.^d Power o( 0>da/f7i/7(r^
exercifing Dijcipline and Goverrdhg the Church as well as of Preach-
ing and difpenhng the Sacraments. But that ihefe B'jJrps had (as
Dr. H-Mmwrn fancies) a Power of Ordmaag under ihemfelvcs 6/w.
N 2 • f^s
[n J D1I0.4.. Ca^j. ij, .-J, zi,2.2. Vuid.oi che Difs. CJhap. 2. Anuoc. on Act. 11. b and i:^. «.
I oo Defence of the CHap; IL
pk Preshters zs they call them, that is, Men impowered to P?-^^^
and Difpenfe the SAcraments, which is the worthier Pare of the
Office, and on ihe Account of which efpecially the.^o/i^/^ /-/c?/?(?/w'
is due; without Power of O/ciiwing £nd Govtr?2l^,s., which is the
kller Part of ihe Office, I Hi ill believe it when I fee it proved. In
the mean Time I am not mo'epeifwaded that thereis fuch a Book
as the Bible, than I am that there is no mention \n it of any fuch
Creature as a Smple PresbyNir or of a Power lodged m the Hands of
a B'jhot? to make-any ftich ; or that thereis ia all the Kingdom a
Preshyt-erian Miniller who is not as mnch a Bfjjjop, in all that Senfx;
the New Teftamenc means the Word, as the Primare of all E^gT
land is. I now proceed to Fx^mine.
IV. His Demoollration for the Divine Right of P^^A^^ fiom its
bein^i confirmed by Miracles. The Reader heard before of Mi%
Rhi^{i\ Miracle Working Bifhops. This He tells us, p. 69. has
given him the Hint ofaThing which in His Opinion is a Plain Denson*
ftration/or Epifcopacy, which is this in His own Words,
' Seeing after that Time, in which a Proper Kpifcopacy is ac
' knowledged to have univerfally obiain'd, feverals / whom the
* Adverfaries of that venerable Order cannot deny to have beea
* Bifhops in the Ordinary acceptation of that Term ) were allowed
* the Gifts of the Holy Gholl; 'tis certain that Their Office was of
* Divine Inflitution For it is not to.be fuppofwd that our Lord
* woo'd have vouchafed them th^fe Ipccial Donatives of Heaverr,
* which they employed in the Difcharge of the Epilcopal Office, had
* it been ( what the Presbyterians commonlv Cdll it ) an Antichri-
* ilian Ufurparion. Thus, if theOffice of an Apoftle be of Divine
* Inftitution, that of a Bifhop muft be fo too, the Credentials for
' the Miffion of Both being of the fame Authority. This is His
Demonftration.
I do not wonder to find M. DoMrell (0) hintatthis Argument,
his Scheme had need of it : For he in^'enuoufly owns that Epifcopacy is
not to be found in theNew Teftameut j nor indeed can be, as ber
ing
[o] Parajnef. Seft. 17. p. 74.. Erant pia!ter€a,illoqu()qne Seculo Doiu Spiinis S. & MiracuU ilKiftiia.quJi
fiepni fub Ilia qiique Dilciplma prscfentiTimiim probai int. Qu* lane fper»n nou pocerant, fjab Aauchrifto &;
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government: ioi
in^ later than all the Writings thereof. But for Mr. R/?/W who wasfo
well furnilhed with Arguments from the Scripture, to opprefs us
with thefe and with Ai/r^c/^j too was very unmerciful). However
feeing he will needs go upon the Topick of Miracles and extraordi^
nary Gifts^ I think ic but reafonablethat Presl^ytry fhould put in for
its Share. BiChop V/?j//i?w<^ himfelf relates CpJ oijahn Kjjox^ that
beprophtfied ofr/Aw»i MattLwdd. you^nger Brother oi LethingtorPs,
who had infulted upon the Murder ofthe good Regent Murray^ That
hejhotdU die where none fljould be to lament him. A nd t he Prophefie was
literally accomplilhed. He relatesaUo (^) that he foretold ofthe
Earl of Morton That his End [Jjould be with Shame and Ignominy if he did
not mer.dhis Manners; which the Earl remembred at the Time of
his hxecutioUj and fa id * that he found thefe Words to be true and
^ "John Kjwx therem to be a Prophet. He relates alfo C^) how he
ptophcfied that the Laird of Grange fhould i>e pulled out of his Nejl^ and
his Carcah haf/g before the ^//^jWhich accordingly cametopafs. He re-
latesalfo (j) a Couple of Miraculoiis Providences interpofed in be-
halfofM. John Craig anoth^v Fresbjterian Minifter. Twenty other
Things, as miraculous andatlealt as well attefted as thefe of/k/i?-
iitOj hena^s^ ot Gregory v[\\a^\n be related of other Presbyterian Mi-
ciders; but tor the greater Credit, 1 have fatisfied my.felf with-
thefe recorded by tha Epifcopal Hiftorian.
In the mean Time I am lully convinced that there cannot be
a greater Weaknefs than to bring fuch Things in Argument on
the one Side or the other. Had ever a Bifbop or any Bod/ elfe-
come and preached to the World that E^jfcopxcy is of Divine
Right, and that all the PalTages of the New TelUment relating
to Chiirch Government are to be underftood in a Senfe confilfenc
With that Dodrine, and had offered to woik a Miracle for Con-
firmation of all this. ■ Had the Event A^f^A'ered, and an unconteft-
ed Miracle been w rough i ; I acknowledge it might hivefupeifeded
all Oiher Arguments, and put an End to ^11 further Difpures. But
I fuppofe it will puzle Mt. Rhmd to find w heie this was ever done*
nay which is a great umhappinefs to him, by his Account, fuch a
Miracle
[/ J ghuxch Hut. p. J3,f. [^ J.Iijid.p.a(54» £ / J IM. p. 2d5. [/] Ibidp. 4^3j
162 Defence of the Chap. J/,
Miracle in tliofe early Days had been unnecefTary; becaufe no Body
then was in any Doubt aboui the Divine Right of Prelacy: No
Calvm was not born for many hundreds of Years after ; nay, Aerius
himfelf that Father of Presbpmm Schifnciaticks was yet fleeping.
in his Original Caufe'^. There are feveral good Proietlants ihac
do not think that all the Miracles reported to be wronght by the
Jefuits in their Mi (lions among the Pagans are meer ForgerieSo
If there was any Thing real in Them, it was a Seal to the Troth
of Chriflianity in General which was the great avowed End of
their MifTion. But will any Body inferr thenc^ that the Order of
the Je/ufts is of Divine Inflifution ? Balaam was endued with Ex-
traordinary Gifts, does it therefore follow that God ai^proved of
his Chara£^er as a Omwr or Soothfayer'^ Cyprian^ difcou'fiiig of
fome who had broken oflp the Chu«ch by Schifm, yet fuppofts it
poffible for Them to fignaltze themfelves by Miracles ( t ). In like
Manner Jugufiw. * Let no Man, faith he (t/), vend Fables a-
* mong you. Both Pontius wrought a Miracle, and Domtusi^vdiY^
* ed and God anfwered him from Heaven. Fir ft either They arc
^ deceived themfelves, or elfe They deceive others. However fuppofe
* he could remove Mountains^ yet, faith the Apoftle, If I have not
' Charity I am nothing. Let us fee whether he harh not Charity^
* I fiiould have believed it, it he had not divided the Unity ; For
* my God hath warned me againft all fuch Wonder-mongers fay-
' ing //; the Utter Days there jhull artfe falfe Prophets doing Signs and
* Wonders, Thus JluguJHn. Here then is one Dtmonjiration for
EpfcopAcy fairly fpoiUd. But as it is not the Firit, fo it is not like-
ly to be the Laft.
ART
r^J O'/"'"''*" de Unuat. Ecclcfix. Nam & proplietare, & Dxmona exrludeie, & Vircutes magnas in ter-
is faccre, I'JLjumis uciqueSc admirabilis res eft j noa tamen Regnum ccelelle coniequitur quifqiiis in his om-
Hibusinveiiitiii-, nifi rcai & julh Iriiiens obfeivadone [ li. e. Vtut^th EcdtftA'\^\3.iia.im: f v] Auguflinus
Tom. IX. Traft. 13. in Evan. JojH. p. 122. Nemo ergo vobis tabulas vcndar. Et Pontiu:. fecit miraculum, &
Doimui oruvit &i rcf^'ondit ci Deus de Ctth. Piimo aut {alluntur atufallunt. I'ofticmo lac ilium moincs
a-ansterie. Chaiicatem aiuem, inquit, non habcam, nihil fum. Vidsamus utriim habiient Chantatem- Cre-
di rein, ft non Jivi.'iflcc Unitatem. Nam & contra iftos, uc fic loquar, mirabiliarioscautum inc tccicJJeuiiaieus,
I>iC«u5 i lu HOvilTuTiis tempoiibus exlur^ieiu ricudopropheta;, iacicnics iig'-w k poi:cnu.
5'e<^. V, Presbyterian Government: 103
ARTICLE III.
Wherern Mr, RhindV Vr oof for the Inflitutton
of Prelacy from the Epifcopacy 0/ Timothy
WTitus^ IS Examined, From P, 74 toV.^^i
TTPON this Argument I fhall f. Examine His Reafonings
I by which He introduces Himfelf to it. • IL The Argument
k felf, and what He has advanced for makeing it a Good one.
I. I am to Examine His Reajomngs by which He introduces Him-
ftlf to the Argument, ■ I have fo good an Opinion of His Judgment
as to believe He Himfelf was convinced of the Weaknefs of what
He has hitherto advanced. But^ laith He p. 74,' tkre is yet fiill
Jfomethhg behind which ALOSE ^oes SUFFICIENTLY frove,
that that Sf/periority of Power which the Apoflles exercipd over the Subm
ordi/inte 0/ders of Llergy Men^ that //, over Pr/efls nfjd DedcoMS
(and >'hy not over Prelits too, feeing there were then fuch ? Wou'd
He have us to btlieve 1 hey were hail Fellow with the Apo-
ftles? ) ^vas not puculiar to Them, . and confqu^ntly not E X-
T R A O l D I N A R Y. Now pray what may this be ? ' lis
this, ^ Thn the fame was communicated to others, even to
* fo many, that perhaps there was not a Church confiituted by the
^ "Apoilles, where there was not fuch a Superior Oiiicer appoint-
* ed : at le.-.(l this holds Ttue of the greatefl Number of thefe where-
* of there is \]ention made in the Ne'^ Teltament. Ic will be
very ftrange if Mr. /^^i.;?^ can make goodtliis; For Firfty There
is the C harch of Ccrimh^ the Churches of Ga/atiaj the Churches
of. l^hU/pjfi and all Macedonia, the Ch\ivch O^ Theffalonica, wiili a great
m''-nv more mentioned in the New Teiiament -^ but of any fuch
Huprytor 0,Ji:a u\ any of 'em there is a deep Silt-nce in tlie Scri-
pture.. 6ecoff(ilj^/,Yis the very ^ reverie of Mr^ Doafvdh Doth-me -^
^ccordv
f 04 Defence of tie ^ Chap It
according to whom, as we have aheady heard, there was no fuch
Superior ORDINARY Officer appointed in any Church con-
flituted by the Apoftles, the WHOLE Government being ma-
naged by EXTRAORDINARY Officers fent from "Jerufalem.
But Mr. Rhmd challenges the Presbyterians to con defceni from the
A6s an^ Epiftles, upon one A^ <?/ Ordination And Jurifdidion, 4-
hout which fuch an Officer was not pimifdly employed. And 1 chal-
lenge Him again, indeed all His Party, to condefcend upon one
Aa about which fuch an Officer, not EXTK AORUlNARY,
was employed. Mr. Khind forefaw that His Challenge would be
thus returned. And this brings Me
II. To Examine His Argument or Inftance in Anfwer to the faid
returned Challenge. T/?/;,. faith He p, 74, rvasthe Cafe of Ephefus
find Crete, where Timothy ^;?^ Titus acitdwuh fuch a. Superiority of
Tower. I Anfwer, not Good : For Timothy and Vitus were Extras
ordinary Officers, and therefore it cannot be thence inferred That
that Superiority of Power was defign'd to be perpetual. Mr. Rhino^
was aware that this Anfwer would be made to Him ; and there-
fore having, with unufual Ceremony and Good-breeding, declared
p. 76, that it is notfo contemptible as fome would reprffent tt. He applys
Himfelf with all His might to defend againft it ; and to prove
that Timothy ^iVid Titus were not Extraordinary Officers, but the
Ordinary and fxed Prelats of Ephefus and Crete,
This He argues EtrH, from the Silence of the Scripture, that
there is no Intimation made in all the Ads and Epiftlesthat They
Were fuch Extraordinary Officers. Secondly^ From the Portfciipts
to their EpiftJes which txprtfly call tlum the firfi Bfjhops, that
is. Ordinary and fxed Prelates of Ephefus and Crete. Thirdly, From
the concurring Teftimony of the Ancients, who with one Voice
declare as the Polifciipts do. Fourthly^ From Scripture Ainhoriries
proving that Timothy and Titus were of an Order Superior to Pres»
byteisand Deacons, and fuch as was always to be continued in
the Chuich. A Set of very ftrong Arguments I acknowledge*
Let us Examine whether he has made them good.
Firfl', He afferts that there is no Intimation ?nade in all the A£la
and Epiiiles that Timothy and Titus were fuch Extraordinary Officers^
p. 77. I affirm the contrary. No, M.v. Dodwcll, 1 fiiouid have
faid^
ScSt.V: Presbyterian Govertment. 105
faid, affirms the contrary ; and Proves, from the very fame Ar-
guments drawn out of the Epinies which the Presbyterians have
always infilkd on, that their Office was not fixed with refpe6\ to
Ephd/us and Crete^ but that They were Itinerant Miffionaries.
This he proves with R efpea to T/wo/^j from S. PWs BESEECH-
ING him to abide at Ephefus^ from his being called ^n EvangeUft^
from his frequent Journeys withS. Pauty and the like. And with
Refpe^lto i/f«/, he affirms th At he was not more confnsd to any one
fUce 'h^n the Jp'^/he ?au\hir/^fflf was, I have fet down his Words oa
the Margin i x) that the Reader may fee all this.
Secondly, hsaiguesfrom the Volffcrfpts to the Epifi/ps to Timothj
and Titus^ tvhich^ W\x\\ he p. 78. do expieflv call them the firft Bifhops,
//;>!/ /V, Ordinary ^^/Y) fixed Pye/^rej, ^ Ephefus^»^ Crete. Well, is it
true that they were fo ? We have already heard M. Dodivell; let us
bear another, who was as mu-^h concerned to keep the Epifcopal
Caufc Right as ever Mr. Rhi^d is likely to be. The Perfon I mean
is DrJVhni>j, ' FirB^ faith he (j\ IalTert,that if by faying T/wtJ-
t thy and Tttus were Bjfhops,the one ot Ephe/us the other oiCrete^ we
* underftand rhat they took upon thtm thefe Churches or Dioceffes
^ as their ViXED and PE'^ULlAR Chaige, in which they
* were toprefide forTerm ofLite, 1 believe that Timoihysind Titus
* were not thus Bifiiops. Thus he. Bur what now (hall become of
the Credit of the poor ?o(lfcrtpts by this ? Why the fame Dr. Whitby
proves them to be falfefrom the very letter of the Text it felfintbe
Epifiles, But Mr. Rhtrid is mme tender hearted. * Though, /4/V/? he^
* They are no Part of the Cauon of the Scriptures ; yet are they of
* fo much Authority, that the Presbyterians ihtxn'idv^^ have not yet
* dar''d to cancel them m ihe Common Bibles. Very pleaf^ntly .'
But then let me ask, m the ^>/? Place, feeing They are no Part of the
Qanony what Authority can they have beyond what the Reputation
O of
[x] Paixnef. Sea. lo.p, 4.0. 4.1. Sect vero miinusilliiis (Timothei) non FIXUM fiiinb fed Irinerarium*
•fnuka arguunr. Ro^ariini ilium in.inliffe F^/pf/^ telbtur Apoiv>ius,i Tint. i. 3. Erar er>zo,ciim i-.o^areiur, Ici-
nerarius. Arguit opus Ev4w^'f/;/i* iT/m.^.. 5, Argmint tot iliius cum S. /^ik.o itincTa, & ^oumuneillius cum
A;:io(loloNomcu 111 Infciiptionibiis EpiftuUium ad Thcfsxionkenfts. bimilirer Tito-, Sc tjuidem ibli de confti-
tueidisinC/-ffj,jy,,.^I '.>y Presby:e!i5,iceni prse-ipu Apoltoiuj, T;/ i. 5. RelicUim ilium tuiflc air, uc ea qu«
deerant,corrigeret. Comuem uticjue Apoftoli cum relmqucrttiir Et fane Comitem S. 7'^;.//' aha q'jcqtie lot*
doc It, lion maijis uti<jue ceito alicui loco »(itln^um •■imm ipfe iu«m Apoiiolue. [y] i'icu<ie 10 ibc Ef UU^
to Ti(us.
I o5 J)efence of the Chapi IT.
of the Aut^orsof them can give them ? Now who were the Authors
of them ? Idoubt if that can be difcovered unlefs one would go
to Endor. Were they at lea ft early? No, I will yield the Argu-
ment to Mv.Rhwdiiht can find them for at leaft 500 Years after
the Epiftks were written ; nay,faies Dr. Hammond (^k.) We knew that
//;^ Subfcriptions 0} r^^ Epiftles; are not to be found in all the An*
cient Copes, 2dly, 'Tis true the Pra^j/^m;?i have not dar'^d to can-
cell them in the Common Bibles, v But then I would ask him
Who fiift put them into the Common Bibles? I doubr very much
if they came there by fair Play. The 01 kft £;?gi//2> Tranflations
have them not.. I have by me Epcftatne Caljetnec^ Tranflation
Ptpntctimtljepereaf outeJLo?t!e<g(iti m.d. xxxix. wherein
there is not one Syllable of the BifliopricksofT/>«o% andT/>«j. For
Iniiance, the PoHfcrtpt to the Second Epiftle to T/W/^)', bears this
only, OUntten from; Eome tofien paulc lua^ p?ffcnui» tne fe.
CniltlCpmeupUefatC i^mpejOUtiBeco. But not one Word of
Timothfs being ordained either fir ft ox Second Bifhop. J ask Mr.
Rhind^ Secondly, who caufed print ih^Q PoHjcrtpts in the fame
Letter with the Text, whereas ufually they were put in a diffe-
rent Ltttet that they 'might be known to be no Part of the Can-
on f Good Mr. Behind, pray purge your Party. \ In the mean Time
it is not very generous, to take Advantage of the Preibjtertans for
their not cancelling them^ when thev t^^?-'^ not doit ;• the Power
of printing Bibles being the Prince's Gift nor the Church's. How-
ever fromthe wh@le '(is plain, that it is Ridiculous to make an
Argument of thefe Fojl/cripts, .
Thirdly, He argues from the concurring Teftimonies of the Ancients
jvho with one Voice dtcUr'e as the PoiKcripts Jo,-: And to this, faith he
p. 78, the Presbyterians will find thewfelves firanned to rejoin. No
Doubt. Well, where are thefe Teftimonies of the Ancients? Oh,
' how eafie were it for Him to add to the Number of Pages by
' Quotations to this Purpofe? But ftill I ask where are thev 7 Nay
not one of thefe Ancients has he quoted to this Purpole, Nay, nor
fo much as Named. Who now can doubt but the Presbyterians
mn^fnd thernjelves jlraitned to rejoin ? But if an Epifcopaltan rejoin, .
will
£1 j Preface w ihe i Epao7/wo*>>i(»
5e6t, K Presbyterian Governtnenf. 107
will it not do as well? Hear then Dv.Whiihy, * The great Con-
* troverfic, faith He fa), concerning this and the Epiftle to Ti*
* mothy^ is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bifhops,
* the one of Ephe/us znd the Proconfuiarjfia^ {ho oihct oi Crete^hsLV"
' ing Authority to make, and Jurifdi^iort over fo many Bijhops as
* were wthoje PrecirMs, . Now of this Matter, I confefs I can find
* Nothing in arjy Writer of the/r/? three Centuries, nor any Inti-
* mation that they bore that Name. Thus he. And the Presbym
terian^ being fecured from the Ancients of the ^rjl three Centuries,
any Hazard from the reft is not much to be regarded; For, as
M, Le Clerc moft Judicioufly obferves T^") * The Teftimonies of the
* Antients about this Matter, who Judged rafhly of the Times of the
* Apoftles by their own,and fpake of them in the Language of theic
* own Age, are of little Moment ; and fo do no more prove that T/-
* tus was Bifhop of the Ifland of Crete^ than what Dr. Hummoni,
* faies, proves Him to have been dignified with the Title of an
f Archbijhnf,
Fourthly, He argues from Scripture Authorities which prove, as
fie faies p. 79, that ^r'lmothy and. Titus were of an Order Superior
to Presbyters and Deacons ^ and fuch as was always to bejontinued in the
Church,
Fir ft. With refpe£t to Timothy he obferves from ACls 20. ^tl
compared with A^s 19.10. and A^ls i(),i6. ^nd A^s 20. fj, that
Ephefus was furnifhed with Paftors e're the Apoftle Paul left them.
And yet he be/ought Timothy to abide there to charge fome that They
Jbould teach no other Do£lrine, and to perform feveral other Functions
which import a Superiority of Power, with refpe6t to Ordinatioit
Vit\d Juri/diclion : * For,/^//^ H^^. 8i,Isit to be fuppofed, if the
^ Presbyters and Deacons of Ephejus could alone have difcharged
* thefe Offices, that St. PWwou'd have continued r/wc/^j there,
* encroaching on their Divine Right. The Anfwer is abundantly
obvious ; for F/>y?, when the Apoil:le was a departing out of thefe
Bounds, he warned the Elders of Ephe/us thzt after His Departure
(jrtevous Wolves jbould enter in not Spur ing the Flocks To give a
0 2 Check
[.r] Ibid ubi Supra p. 4.8/. Vol. II. ££>] Supplemen; to Dr. Hrfwin»»«<i's Annot. on the Ep. to Tit»^
f. ( anhi ) /JO,
ioS • Defence of the Chap. 7A
Check to fuch it was Expedient in the Infancy of that Church;
(noreof Her Minifters being then above three Years Standing m
the Office A5is 20.31.) that a Ferfon botht)F Extraordin jry Cha*
raOer and Gifts fliould be among them. Which, when once the
Government was fettled and Things broughi: into a fixed Order,
th^re would be nofuch Ojcafnn for. Secondly^. Paui"*^ bcfeeching
Timothy to abide at hphcfus lb a certain Argument, as wc havehe-^rj
from Mr. Dodwtll^ That he was not there eftablifhed Bifhdp: For
to what End fliould Hei'^/f^f^ a BiQiopro refidc in his own Dio-
cefs, when he could not dootheruife without offlinding God and
negle(^ling his Duty. Thirdly^ The Elders of Ephefus already or-
dain'd \X/ere BilTiops. So, faies Dv, .Htmmorjd^ my (0 {sliqs the
Sacred Text j^ds 20. 28. ovf-r whiich the Hoiy Gho/l huh made yoi4'
Bifhops: /ind therefore as B^jhop^ They had Power to perform all
A/lini(ierial Functions, and only wansed fuch an Extraordinary Per*
fon as Timothy to direft and affiil them in their prefent Circum*
fiances. The Romans^ iometimes when the Common Wealth wa^
in Imminent Danger, cieated a Didator with an Abfolute Power
for Six Months, without bo-mding him with any other Inftru£tions
but thache fbouJJ tak^ care M? q^' i Oetrrn^ati Rfpthlict aperet. But
will it therefore follow that the Ditiator(htp was a Itandmg Office?.
Or will the Roman's making C hoife of iuch an Officer in their
Extremity jurtifie or excufe ^ylU or "Julius de/ar who would needs
have themfelves declared Perpf-iual UicUrorSy and thereby enfl^ved
their Native Country. Though one rakes Fhyfick when he is fick,
yet it would be a very unpleaiant Diet for Oidin.3ry* Though a
Gentleman wears leading Strings while he is a Child ; and is under
Tutors or Curators till he is oae andSmaty, does it follow that he
inuft always be fo?
Secondly, With refpefl to Titus, Mr.Rhind Ojggellsthat he was
left at Lrete with a Power to infpea thtr Q_jilific3tioos of fuch as
Iho'jld be ordained Chip, i. 7. to rebuke hit^cts as wellas others
Ch^p, 2, 1 1^.. to rejea, that is to Excomnunicate, Hnticks, and all
this nocwuhihiiduigth.^re werr.^oui:r Churcliv)ffi;ers ordained the-fi
befo»e: For He was Lft to Jti in Omy the Things ( relating tO
Otdioati(in2.n(\]]unfdittion) which mrt wAnfi/.g which muft needs
iiifexx ihii he aded la a Capacity Su£?cnor to iheai. 'lis anfweri
Sefl. V* Trcshytcxim Government: 109
cd. Crete was as yet in a great Meafure unplanted when PWlefc
him there. He was left there on Purpofe to Ordain Elders in every
City, Thefe Elders whom he ordqin'd were B/fhops; the Text CK-
peflyfaiesic Chap.i. ^—-j. Dr.Hiwwo/^^Himlelfownsir. Whm
therefore thev were onceordain'd, they had Power to perform all
Afts any Bifhop is capable of. But Mr. Rhtndi[([Qvts p. 8^, ' That
* TttuSf after he had ordained Elders in every one of the Cit es of
* Creie, continued there exercifeing what we properly call ,in Epif^
* copal Jurifdi8ion over them when ordained. But, FirH, not one
Word has heoffv^red for the Proof of this. Secondly, The ^criprure
contradicts it as we fliall hear juft now. Thirdly, If he cxercifed
any JurifdiQion over them, they being Bifliops themfclves, it could
not be firoplyan Epifcapd but (triply and properly an Architpijco*
f:tl Juriididion. But 'tis plain he did not continue in Crete to ex-
ercife either: F or ^ Fourthly^ Dv, Wht^hy rot only confefTes,
but proves from Scripture that he did not continie thete. ' As for >
* Titus, he was only lettat<.V^/eto Ordain Elders in eve^y City and to
^'fet in Order the Things that rvere wanting. Having therefore done
* that Work, he had done all that was aflTigned him in that Sta-
* tion. And therefore S. Paul fends for hun the very next Year to
* Nicopolis Tit, ^. 12. Thus He. It therefore Mr. Rhindh Inftance
prove any I hing, it muft be the Divine Right of Non.refidence^
whit-h indeed wou'd be no ungrateful! Performance to feveral Peo-
ple i«i the World
Thus I have gone through whatever Mr. B.hind has advanced
on this Proof. And no'-v to Conclude it ; there is Nothing Surer
than that there was a perfefl: Equality among BfjJjops for the fi^t!:"
three Centuries, and fd M. Dc?<iivt// affirms. Th^re is Nothing
plain.T from the Scripture than that there were Bifhopsat Ephtfus
btSo^e Timothy was letc there; and that ihofe whom Titus ordain-
ed in Oe^e were Bfjh^ps in all that Sence of the Word the New
Tvlidment ow.is. How then Timothy and 7'////i couM he the'
fx^u and ofdtna>j Frelats of Ephe/us and Crete is beyond the Power of
Natjral U'.ide ihnding to conceive. If Mr. Rhmd can lolve ivQ
in this O'j Scvjple, or if any oiher of his Brethren can, 1 fh.^U'
o-vn ir as a fMguLr Obligation. And therefore I defire ihem tO'
Ukc puiii ua iheir Anfwer, and to -Labour it with all due Ca'c
ARIiCLE
iio Defence tf the iChap.iZ,
A R T I C L E IV.
Wherein Mr. Rhmd s Tr oof for Prelacy front
the Apocalyptitk Angels^ is Examined.
^FromV.^toVM.
MR. Rh'md \s much finorter on this than en any ofrhe Preceecf-
ing Proofs. The Realbn, no doubt, is, becaule Ms much
clearer. And therefore He puts on afl h's Airs, and treats the Hresljm
teriayjs with a Noble Difdain in the Cot^fidence of it ; woudring
Tbey can be fo Senjlefs or Obflinate as to rtfift its Evicknce. That
I may not wrong Him, I fhall fet down every Word of what he
lias on it without the leaft Omiffion.
' And that fuch a Superior Order did obtain a confiderable Time
*^ after this, is evident from the Inftances of the Seven Apocalyp-
* tick Angels, to whom our Lord direQs fo many Epi^Ies
* by his Servant St. "John: A plain Indication of his nppro-
' bation of that Authority which they estercifed; efpecially con-
* fidering that there is no Infinuation made to its Difad vantage in
* the Epiftles direded to them. And that thefe Angels wercfingk
* Perfons, and the Go'z^^y»(?M of thefe Churches, will be fz/zWe//^
* to any who fhall impartially confider the 2d and jd Chap, of the
* Revel at io»y where they are plainly chAra5teriz,ed as fuch, Jo very
* plainly^ thit perhaps all the Authors who ever > commented upon them^
* whether Ancient or Modern, have fufpofed them to be fuch. Nor was
* it ever queflioned by any, till the Intereft of a Party obliged forae
* to fearch for Criticifms, by which they might feem with their
* Followers to anfwer the Argument drawn Irom thefe Inftances
'* for Epifcopacy : But the Evafions they have been forced to ufe,
* are (0 /en/ele/Sy and have been fo often expofed as fuch, that lam
J faved the Labour of expofing them further, or of repeating what
has
Se3:, V. Presbyterian Government^ m
' has been already faid to difprove them', only I miift add, that
« fo groundlefs are they, and fuch is the Evidence of Truth on the
* Ef/fcopal Side, that it extorted from Tome Presbyterian Authors and
* particularly from Bgza^ one of the moft Zealous and Learned Pa-
* trons of Parity, a ConfeflTion that thefe Angels were fmgk Per«
J (ohs, and the Governors ot thefe feven -4/^<w Churches.
Now let us examine all this.
In the Firft Places Were thefe Jpocalyptick Angels thefx^'d BIOiops
of< thefe Churclies ? 'Tis true Mr. Dodwe/l, in his Book of the 0»e
Prlefihood and one jUar which hepublifhed in the Year 168^, is of
the Opinion (c) thai the Bijbops are here reprefented in a My(ticalWay^
and perfonated hy the Name <>/• Angels; but in \m Par^nefis^ a Book
which he publifhel above 20 Years after the former, and
which eonfequently mufl be fuppofed to betheWifer Book of the
two, he frequently inculcates, as we have heard before, that there
were no /jc^^ Bifhops in the World at that Time ; and particularly
as to thefe Apocaly ptick Angels, though he is in a very great Doubt
what to make of them C d)^ yet by no means will he allow them
either to have been l^/j^/>i or indeed the fixed Pmhjtries of thQ
PUce; but gueflfes them to have been Itinerary Legates fent from
Jerufakm anfwering to the feven Spirits Zach. 4. 10, i hat are the Eyes
of the Lord which run to and ft 0 through the whole Earth, (^e J Was Mfo •
Rhind then to fetk for Confidence when he woald be fo pofitive
in a Matter of which the gieateft Man of his Party cou'd not have -
a clear View \ and in which, fo far as he could guefs, he has de-
termined againfl Him.
Secondly, How came Mr. Rhind to number thefe Apocaly ptick
Angels, calling them the 6 E ^ £ A^ Apocalyprick Angels?
ThQ ^ Jpoca/jpfe it felf does not call them SEVEN. It is
faid indeed Chap. j. 20. that the /even Candle flicks are the feieti^ '\
Churches y there both the Sy mbois and Things reprclented by thenfi ■ '
are ^
[c ] CHap.XII.'S^ft.a. p-SJi. &c. [d] Vide'Sea. 10, p.32.
fej Paranes. Sett. lo. p. ji. lea tuiflTe neceili; erar, li qjidemveve Epifcopifuitrent Angeli Apocal/ncf.
Sed deiUis fciitentiam noftram intra explicabimus. p, 39. 40. Smon fuffecennr, lie alio; tuilTc- vcrilimillimum
cH^T Angelo-, E'-'-' -^iiriMn ' v.rii,/n::icos ab iiilhtunslocoiiim Presbyteris.—Erant ergoeciam ipfi tJiiaPi^ Hi^ro-
iblyaiitai.oruin Legati^ fed Apbflolis' ipfis obnoxn.-- iit pvoinde OcuLs Donntn feptous Sf-'fitibu-s relpon-
<1- . iz^ti_^vii ,^4,0. ._,,,.. jLudiicLuiebiiitpei- univerfaifa Teriam. — Sic tuenutetwmiiiEcclcfiarurarxsaitiai.
«oue loco onuudi, led milli Werofoljmif luuciani. ■■■•
i 15 Defence of the Chap. JZ-
are numbered : But it is not fo in the other Branch. 'Tis nog
faid The Seven Stars are theStVQti Angels^ but indefinitly are theS^sv^m
Jngels of the feven Churches. Is not this a plain Indication that the
liolyGhoft would not oblige ustotake the Word ^/>g^/i Angularly ?
Thirdly, are thefe Angels chara^ierizedzs fingle Peilbns? Though
Mr. Rhl^d indeed is more than ordinariy Sharp fighted,yet I am fo far
from kQing ih'is Eviaent, that I cannot difcern one Shadow of it;
but on the contrary, I think I lee them, and that too as p/aw/y as
ever I fiw any Thing, chara^tertztd foastodenoie aColledive Body*
Poflibly my Sighcisviiiaied ; but then much greater Men I'm
fure than I, and at leaft as good Friends to the £^//^^/'4/Caufe, have
feen themjjft the fame Way. Dx, Henry More^ a Man of an Apo*
calyptick Genius himfelf, frankly own*^ (/) * That by /^^^f/^, ac-
* cording to the Apocalyptic k Stile, all the Agents under their Pre*
* fidency arereprefentedor infinuate. And this, /an hhe^ isfo fre*
* quent and obvious in the Jpoiaiypfe, that none that is verfed there-
* in can any wife doubt of it. Wherefore Chrift his Writing to the
* Angel of the Church of £p/^f///^ in this Myftical Senfe is his Writ*
* ting toallBifliops, Paftors andChriftiansin thefirlt Apoftolical In-
* terval of the Church. Thus Dr. Mj^^-. Yea Mr. D^j^jW/ himfelf
owns Cg) Thatthe whole Churches of the Lydian or ProcmfuUr A,
fiA are to be undeiftoodby the Myftical Repstfentation in the Jpocu
Ijpfe, and that the Reafon why S.y^/^» confined his Number ioSeve?t
is, * not that by any Geographical Dilfin6fion thofe Seven Cities
' were incorporated into a Body more than others of that Province,
* but that he had a particular Regard to the Number of the Angels
* of the Prefence. How is all this confident with their being ^^^r^.
Bertzed2^sfwgleVtx{m^'^. But let us wav^ Human Judgment and
appeal to the Text.
Fourthly. I ask, Are thefe kngdscharaSieyized in the 2d and ^d
Chap. ohhQ Re^tlatioms fingie Perfons and iUq Governors of tlKfs
fhuiches ? 'Tis true each Epiifle is dir^ditd jo the Angel'm the
(ingular Number. But 'tis as true, that that Tiile agrees to every
Minitier of the Gof^^el, and to every one that bears the Mtflage
of
({) Expos oi the feven Ep. to the Seven Churches p. ap [gj Ooe PriefUiood Chap. XII. Seft. t
Sed. V* Presbyterian Government] 113
of the Lord. And it is as true, that the Word J?jgel even in the
y?/7^w/4r Number bears 2iColletfive Senfe; as when it isfaid Pfalm
54. 7. The Angel of the Lord encamps rmnd about them that fear him. So
that nothing can be inferred on the Epifcopal Side either from the Title
it felf, or from the Ufageofitinthe fingularNumber. But then if
we look into the Body of the Epiftles themfelves, confider the Way
how they areufhered in, and the (olemn Claufe with which each of
them concludes, 'tis plain that Jngel r[\u(\ be taken in a ColleQive
Senfe, as Including not only all the Minifters of the Church but in-
deed the whole Church it felf. Thus, \n the frfi Place John dire^ls his
Revelations to the Seven Churches which are in Jfia, Rev. i. 4. Thus
the J^oice behind him ordered \\\myWhat thou feejl write in a Book, and fend
it unto the [even Churches which are in Afta Rev, i . v. i o. 1 1 . Thus at the
End of the whole Vifion, / Jefus have fent mine Angel to teflif)untoy§u
ihefe Things in the Churches Rev, 22. 16. Thus at the End of every
of the Epiftles there is that Solemn Claufe, he that huh an Ear to hear^
let him hear what the Spirit faith unto z/;^ Churches. Secondly ^ if we
look into the Bodies of the Epiftles themfelves, we fhall find the
Thing ftill more clear. Firfi in the Epiftle to the Angel of the Church
o^Ephefus (hall we think that the Commendation ^ov Labour and Pa-
tience, the Reproof of the Decay 0^ the firfl Love, the Exhortation
to Repentance, t\\QThvQ3itmngto remove the Candle flick out of his Place^
werediredled to or concern'd only one//2^/e Perfon ? Would our
Saviour punifh a whole Church fo grievoufly as to deprive them of the
Gofpel for the Fault of their Bifhop ? N oWhen hefaies the Angel of EphQ-
{us^He means the Church in it faith Aretas Bifliop oiCafarea in Cappadocia
(Jo), 2ly, When he bids the Angel of the Church of 5wjyr;?tf. Fear
vone of thefe things which thou [halt fuffer: Isitnotprefently added,
Behold the Devil fljsillcafl SOME of YOU into Prtfon that YE may be
tryed ; and YEfball have Tribulation ten Dajs. Is this the Characterizing
oiafngle ?Qv{on? When he exhorts to Faiihfulnefs, ^ttdmdikesVvQ'
m\[ii to him that overcomes, does he direft to the Bifhop only ? No,
faith Auguflin (i) He faies it to the whole Church, ^dly, When hefaiih
to the Angel of the Church oiPergarnus^lknow th) Works, and where thou
P divdltfl,
f h ] Comment, in Apoc. ^^^ n «utj) iKK>^re-loii Pi-Vsil
£ i 3 ^AugujiinTom. IX. HomH' 2.ia,Jftf. Omni Ecc lefis di«It.
114 Defence of the Chap. 7/;
dweHeJf, even where S4UfPs Seat is y W9s it the Bifhop only had fuchbad,
Quarters, when 'tis inftantly added in the end of the Verfe, Ant7fat
my fait hfuH Martyr was Jlain among YOU where Satan dwelleth? No,
faith AugaHin (k), ' thefe things under 2l fmgi^Ur Word are faid
^ to the whole Church, becaufe Satan dwells every where by His
* Body: - Now the Body of Satan are Proud and wicked Men,
' juH: as the Body of Chrift are fuch ss are hun:ible and Good*
Indeed the whole Church in thefe Parts was in the greateft Dang-
er of Idolatry, orofPerfecution in CaCe of not complying wiih it;
For in Pergamus flood the famous Temple of JEfcuUfius^ whither
the greateft Perfonages went, or fent their Gifts becaufe of the
Fame of his OraclCo Thither Earinus Dor^itiarPs freed Man fent
his confecrated Hair with a Mirrour and a Box fet with Jewels
(I), Thither the Emperour Mton/us Caracalla went to be cured
of his Sicknefs by the God, and to ly in for Dreams ( m). Thi*
ther alfo Apollonius Tyavd^us^ who was fet up to mate our Savioar,
went to be Dire^lor of the Oracle, and toinflrucl the Votaries that
came there how They might obtain Divine Dreams from the God
r » ). To this God Dragons and Serpents were Sacred, and main*
tained on the Publick Charge in His Temple. Fittly therefore
■was Satan that Dragon and old Serpent Rev. 12. 9. faid to have////
Seat there. Add to all this, that admitting there had been fuch
Officers as Prelates in thofe Days, yet it would be probable that the
See was Vacant at this Time: For, as the Tradition goes, Ami-
'fas was the BiQiop of that Place; but He was Martyred in the
Tenth Year o^Domitian, as tht Roman Martyrology bears; which
was the very Year in which, as the mofl common Tradition car-
ries it, John the Divine was baniflied to Patmos. ■■ And Dr. Ham^
7?wnd^ foi feeing, it feems, this Difficulty, placed John^s BaniihinQnt.
in the Rcign of Claudius. And makes the Relation of the Mar-
tyrdom of -^;^///'^j Rev. 2.13. to bQ not H^fl or) but Prophefie; and
whereas
[k] Z'&////^/'^ — omni Ecclcfi.c dicit inuniiH vocabulo, quia iibique habkat Ssranas per Corpus fuuflj;
Corpus auxem Sacanx homines funt fuperbi & mail ; Sicuc & corpus Ghnfti kumilcs iSc boiii,
[ 1 ] ' — Dulcefljiie Capilloi
Pergameo pofuit dona facrara Deo. Mu/S:
[nij HcodUn Lib. 4,. Cap. j. 11.
( H } Phdop : 111 vu. ,j£olL L]b. 4. Cap. IJI»
Sed. V^ Vrcshytcrhn Government 115
whereas the Text reads, Antipas wj Faithfull Martyr was /«/», He
paraphrafes it, J/Jt/pas, for His Fidelity and Couraoe in preaching the
Gofpd, will be (Iforefee) cruelly Martyr'^d. And if the See was
Vacant at that Time, how could the Epiftle be direded to the Bi-
Ihop? 4thly, When He writes to the Angel of the Charch in
Whyatiray was it the Works, Charity, Service, Faith and Patience
of the Bifliop alone that He commends verfe 19? Was it the Bi-
fhop alone whom He reproved for fujjering that Woman Jezabel ?
No, faich, Augufiin (^0 J, Mt was fuch {in the Plural Number)
^ as were fet over the Church, who negleded to impofe that Se-
* vere Difcipline upon Fornicators and other riotous Livers which
* They ought. Is the Angel of that Church charaderized as a
ftngle Perfon, when 'tis exprefly faid verfe 24. But unto YOQ /
fay^ and unto the reft in Thyatira. Are not here two Parts of the
Church plainly diftinguiflKd, viz. the Minifters thereof in the
plural Word YOU, and the people defcribed by the reli in Thy-
atira ? The only Anfwer which the Epfcopal Party have for avoid-
ing the Force of this Obferve is. That the Word and is not to be
found in fome Copies ; and fo they read the Text thus, Vnto you
I fay the rell in Thyatira. But all Anfwersare to be fufpeded that
invade the Text. 'Tis true, the Word and is wanting in fome Co*
pies; but it is as true it is to be found in many moe, and thefe too
of as good Credit and as great Antiquity. In the Year 1546. Toff-
Ball Bifhop of Durham found an Expofttion on the Jpocalypfe bear*
ing the Name of St. Ambrofe the Billiop (p\ which He publifh-
cd in the Year 1554, and in His preface to the Reader He is earn-
eft to have him believe that it is the Work of Ambrofe Bifhop of
Milan, and He exprefly reads it with the And. I believe indeed
H'onjiall was deceived about the Author. But this is certain that
.whoever He was, He was a very Ancient Writer, and according-
P2 ly
[ o ] Q^iod aucem dicit AngeloThyatirx Ecclefix lH.tbeo>tdverfum tefauca ] dicicPrccpoficis Ecclefiarum;
^uiLuxunolis&formcaiKibus, & aliudc^uod iibec malum ageiu-bui ievc*u*icm .DiSipiio.t EccicIJalU£« u«n
.'unpeiiunc. }iom. 2. in Apoc.
( P ^ Expofuio Beati Amljrofa Epiicopi fuper Apocalypfu),
%iS Defence of the Chap./Z
]y the Work is inferted among thofe olSuAmhrafe (q). And
though that Writer ibmetimes mentions the Bi/hop in His Expofi-
tion of ihefe feven Epiftles, yet he not only interprets the Surs by
Holy Preachers in the general, but alfo lays down (r) this as
a general Rule, 1 hat all the Governours of the Catholick Church .
are fignified by thefe Angels, and that becaufe of their being
Meffengers of the Word of God, to the People, feeing the Word
JtJgel fignifies a Mejfenger., And though Bezn upon the Authori-
ty of the old interpeter and of the Complidtenfan Edition and two
other Copies did read the faid 24 verfe without the AN D^ yet
in other Editions (^s ) He has inferted it, and always expounds the
Phrafe To the Angel, by thefe words T^ //^^ Paftors, 5thly, When
he gives this Charader of the Angel of the Church of Sardh^
Thou haft a Name that thou liveft^ and Art Dead, Is it a Defcription
of one fmglefQxion in that Church, whether Bilhop or Presbyter?
Is it not rather of tha-t whole Church excepting thefe few Namts
mentioned verfe 4. Chap, ^. which huA not- defied their Garments! Yes
certainly, and fo the forecited AuguUin faies, and gives it for a ge-
neral Rule, much after the fame Way with Ambrofe before cited,
* ^That becaufe Angel fignifies a Mepnger^ therefore whoever either
* Bifliop or Presbyter or- even Lay-Man fpeaks frequently of God
* and tells Men how They may come to eternal Life, is deferved-
* ly called the Angel of God (^t ), dthly. When he- faies to the
Angel of the Church in PbiUdelphiay Ihavt fet before Thee an ope»
jpoor^"^' Thou haft a little Strength^ andhaji kept my l^^ord &G. Did
He mean thereby to charaQerize a ///^/^ Perfon ? No, 'tis plain
it; is the CharaQer of the Church,, and fo the forecited AuguHin
exprefly faies (^u ), Indeed there is not one Claufe in the whole
Epiliie that fo niuch 2i^ fsems to defcribe a />i'^/^ Perfon, ysa evea
[q ] Edit. Co^onlce Agiippinx. 1661. [ r ] San^9:l Prxdicacores. — Cap. i. ad finem. Septem igitur Angelos,
Rcaor€sfep:emEcclefiaiumdelacmusintclligete, coqnod An^elus NUNTIUS nuerprecatur, Ec quiVeibum
Dei popuhs aanunoanf, noii ipconvcnienter ANGELI, id eH:,NUNTII vocancur. E: ficut perfeptem Eirclefs**,
wnaEcckfia.Cachohca, ica per (epcem Reaoies feptcm Eccltfisrum omnes Redores Ecticlis Catholics
deUgnancur. [sj Edit, folio Londim. Anno 15-52.
[c] Nam quia eciain Angehis Nunciusintcrpretacur, quicunque auc Ep'ifcopus aut Presbyter auc etiaia
laicusjjequencei- dc Ueo Joquuur,& quomoda.ad vitam seternam perveaiatur annuuciat,.merico Angelas Dei
Di?uur, Jfowj. 2. in Apoc.
[uj Hocideodiainaeft, nc null us dicat, quia »ftium quod Dens aperitfcf/f^if, ,. in COCO mundo aliquis
jofljL yeUu pares ckud«e. ilora. j.Jb;d. ... * .
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government] 1 1 7
that Promife verfe 9. Behold I will make them of the Synagogue of Sa-*
tan to come and Woffljip before thy Feety imports Nothing of peculiar
Priviledge to the Bifhop, but meerly fignifies the Effed that the
Freaching of the Gofpel fhould have upon thefe Enemies, as the
forecited Ambroje explains it (oc). Lafl:ly, the hke is to be faict
of the Church o^Laodicea in the whole Epiftle to the Angel thereof
there is not one Claufe that Chara6\erizes 2ifwgle Perfon. I add fur-
ther, that in none of thefe /fw« Epiftles is there owe Ad of Eptp
copal Jurifdidion fo much as hinted at ; not any Adt which is nor
competent to aE i\\Q Miniftcrs of the Gofpel, yea indeed to the'
Feople therafelves; for Inftance, when it is faid of the Church of
Ephefids Chap. 2ver.2, 'Thou haft trycd them which fay they
* are Apoftles, and are not, and haft found them Liars; it is nor
more than what is the Duty, and will be the Pradice of every
good Chriftian, all being enjoined i John^^. 1. ' Beloved, believe^
* not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, whether they are of God''
'' becaufe many falfe Prophets are goneout into the World.- Again,
when the Church of Thyatira is blamed for fuffering that Womar^
Jezabel, every Chriftian may be guilty of the like, being dif-
charged to own or countenance Infamous and Obftinate Hereticks.
n^ohn lo- ' If there come any unto you and bring not this Do--
* firine, receive Him not into your Houfe, neither bid him God
Speed. Befides, feverai Authors relate, and Dr. Fulk againft the
RhemiUs upon the Place takes notice of it, that the faid Jezabel-
was the Bifhop's Wife; though I do not believe this, becaule I
am very fure that there was no fuch thing as a Bi(hop in the Mc--
dern Senfc at that Time, yet, upon that Suppofition, His Fault-
would have been rather a NegleQ- of his Martfel Authority than-
of his Epifcopal Power ; conlequently it cannot be inferred thence
that he is defciibed there as a Governour of the Church. Upon*
the whole then, Mi\ Rhind has been too unwary, and His For^
tpardnefs has mightily outrun his Judgment v^hcn he allerted, That>
thefe Angels are chara^erized in the 2d and 3d Chapters of the
Revelation as //?g/^ Perfons Dr. HanmwndHvaA^li^ though fo earn*-
eft '
Tx] Id eft, cunrerediderint.per verba tua in mC; adorafeunc ante Pedes luos, dcprecameJi utpex l^ -^
i 1 8 Defence of the (Chap. IIo
to have thefe Angels believed to be fingle Perfons, yet4*e had npt
Courage enough to affiim, that They are characterized there as
fuch, nay indeed he confelTes the contrary (j;. ' Though the
* Angels, faith He, were fingle Perfons, yet what: is faidto ti^em js
' * ?JOt faid only to their Perfcm^ but to the Vniverfdity of the People
* under them, whofe Non-Proficiency, or Remi0ion of Degrees of
^ Chriftian Virtue, efpecially their falling off from the Conihncy
* and Courage of their Profeffion, do delerve ^and are according-
^ ly threatned with) the Removal of that Chriftian Knowledge,
■ ^ thatGrace^thofe Priviledges of a Church which had been allow-
* ed them, C. 2. 5. which is not Jo properly appliable as a. Punishment
* of the Bi/bop, as of the People under him. And therefore in the
>-* Para^hra/e I have generally changed the fingular into the plural
• * number, by that means to leave it indifferently to the Bifljop of each
^ Church and the People under Hirn, and yet further to \\iQ othet^
* Churches fubordinate to each of the Metropoles here named.
Thus Dr. Hammond. And elfw here ( z) He is forced to acknow-
ledge, That ' thofe Expreffions, which are ufed in the fingular Nura*
' ^ ber, do not all belong to the Bifhop, but to the Church u'here-
* in be prefides. The very Truth is Dr. Hammond has abfolutjy
, deftroyed this Argument of the Apocalyptick Angels. For Firft,
.He has made them not fimply Bifhops, but Metropolitans, a Notion
wherein his whole Party, I believe, have now deferted him', yee
he very Judicioufly faw that the Argument could not be fo much
^as coloured without Tome fuch Notion. 2dly, He elfw here ( a )
makes a twofold Bifhop in the fame Place; of which the one was
;fet over the '^Jervifh and the other over the Gentile Chriftians. How
then could thefe Angels h^ fingle Perfons? -Were the Epiftles
written only to the circumcifed, or only to the uncircumcifed ?
But to go on with Mr. Rhind,
Fifthly, Is it true that all the Authors Ancient and Modern rvho have
commented tfpon the 2d and 3^ Chap, of the KQVQhiion have fuppofed
thefe Angels to ^e fingle Perfons and the Governors of theJeChurchts ? I
fuppoCe this Queition may be abundantly fatisfied ; from what I have
already
[ V ] Aiv.ior. j» Rfv, Chap. i. v. lo. [ z ]. Vind. of the DiiTeic. Chap. I. Se£i. u.
[u j ricmi;aiuojirotheie';©iid Epiftic ot S. John,
Sed. V, Presbyterian Government.' 119
skeady difeourfed : For we have heard Arethis. Ambrope, Auguflin
applying the Seven Epiftles to the whole Colledive Body of the
Church. Arethas is an uncontefted Author; of Ambrofe I have
fpioke before/ The only Queftion is about ^//^ /////? whether thcfs
Homilies on x\\Q Revelation^ which I have cited, are indeed his. But
this Queflion does not affeQ the Controverfie. For, though Erafmus
Cb) fufpeOs ihem not to be Au^ufiin's^ yet it is agreed on all Hands
that they are the Work of an Ancient Writer, which fufficicnrly
confutes Mr. R/;/W. And befidesthefe, if Mr. K^/Ws Memory had
ferved him,'' which one might have expeded after bis telling that
he had ftudied the Controverfie with a Scrupulous ExaCfnefs^ He
might have remembred that there are many other Authors both
Ancient and Modern infifted on by the Presbyterians (c) viz. Ambro^
fius Amber t us ( whom fome miihke for the Ambrofe whom I have ci-
ted ) Primafius, Gregory the Great, ^ Haymo, Beda, Richard^ Thomas^
FulkyFox "and Perkins. But Mr. RhindmzdQ choice of iheeafiefl; Way
of doing his Bufinefs: For who would undergo the Drudgery of exami-
ning Things that imagines His Reader is to be put oft with bold
and blind AiTertion ? We have indeed very few Ancient Writers on
the Apocalypfe. It was fome Time before it was Univerf;!lly re-
ceived as Canonical, and the Commentaries of fuch as wrote upon
ir, ( fuch as 'Juftin Mdityr and hennas ) in the firft three Centurie's
are now lofl: ; and though fuch as wrote upon it afterward, when
Pr^/^9' turned Rampant, had interpreted according to the Epifco-
pal Scheme, it cou'd make no Argument againit the Presbyteri^ws:
But when the Evidence of Truth, notwithlknding that Tempta-
tion, forced them to interpret, as we have heard them doing; it
is an irreparable Lofs to the Epijcopal Caufe, And for Mr. Rbind
to ailedge at random,' that all Authors both Ancient and Modern
arc on the Epijcopd Side, without citeing, nay without fo much
as nameing any* one of them, ^ except Be^i^i alone, of whom
juft now, was to be too Prodigal of the Credit of his Judgment,
and is no great Argument of the Difcretion of His Brethren who
Midwif'dHiS: Book into the Woddo •
taflly,
[ b ■] Vrxhu ad Lecv. Noil yidecur Jiugp^^ii, quaoquagi opus Icclu dignum. (c) C
Alt.D4mai;Cap.^. p.^3.5)^. , l^ai.Querei. far. id. Sect ^. SincayniQ»3. -Sett. 13. i^'C
f c ) GerfotrilKSCr.?.^ «•
ri'so Defence of the Chap.//.
La illy, Has B^^^ faid any Thing upon this Argument that
favours the Epifcopal Caufe ? Mr. Rbind brings him in with a great
Deal of Parade as if he were clear on the Epifcopal Side. But
why did he not cite his Words ? Why does he give us his own
Commentary without B^^^'s Text? Why truly there was Reafon
for it. Beza's Words are ihefs (^). ' To the Angel, that is, to the Pre-
* fident (or Moderator ; whom, to wit, it behoved in the firft
* Place to be admoniflied concerning thefe Matters, and by him
f the reft of the Colleagues^ and fo the whole Church. But from
' thence to inferr the fi/'/r^o/'^/Degree!!, which was afterwards brought
* into the Church of God by Human lnventions,is what neither cmmr
ought to be done. Nay, not that that Office of Prefident or Moderator
' fhould neceflfarly be perpetual, as the Oligarchical Tyranny ^whofe
* Head is the AntichrilVianBeait ) which arofe thence now makes it
* manifeft, with the moft certain Ruin,not only of the whole Church
* but World alfo. Judge now, good Reader, of Mr. Khin^^ Mo-
defty, and fay whether Bezn is on the E/'/A^j/^^/Side. If hecou'd
find Teftimonies oiPreshyter'tAn Authors on his Side, I'm fureheis
fufficiently qualified to improve them, when lie could be fo confident
on a Teftimony that was clearly againft him.
So much for the Argument from the Apocalypkk Angels^ And I hope
I may appeal to the Reader if ever he knew -^^jy more fenfelefs or more
groundiefs ufedby any Party on any Caufe : For, fuppofingitwerc
plain even to a Demonftration, that thefe Angels were ftngle Perfons,
yet where is there the leaft Intimation that thefe //?g/^ Perfons had the
Sole Power either of Ordination or Jurisdefiion ; or even a Negative
over the Presbyters in thefe things ? Without this it can be no Ar-
gument for the Modern Epifcopacy. Yet fo true is it that there is no
Intimation thereof, that Dr^Hamnjond will not allow that there were
any meer Presbyters at that Time, wherein he is certainly right. And
?.s that Notion quite deftroys the Argument from the Apocafyptick
Angels^ fo Dr. Whitby has obferved (ej That the fame Notion de-
ftroys
(d) i>z<t in tApoc.tlyp, 2.1. Angelo, id eft, Trp'.sr&iT/j quern opportuic nimirum impiimis de his rebus
a«imoneri,acpereumc.tcerosCol!egas,totamque adeo Ecclefiam. Sed hiiic ftatiii Epifcopalis illeGradus, poitea
bumanitus in Eccleliam Dei ir(vechis,cerre nee poteft nee debet. Imo ne perpecunmqaiderrnftud Tpata-rair©-
inunus eilenecenarioopportuifie, ficutexorra inde TyrrannisOIigaichici [ cu jus Apex eft Antichrilhanft bcltial
cercinima cum tonus, non Eclefij; modo, ied etiam Oibis Pernicie nunc tandem declaiac.
j_cj Anuot. oni Pctci' /'I.
Stdi.V. Presbyterian Governmenil ibi
ftroystwo other Arguments already adduced by Mr, Rhhd, and
ordinarily infifted on by the Ept/copal Writers viz. That from the Form
of Government which obtiin^d among r/;^ Jews ; and the other from the
Subordinat ion of the Seventy fo the TwgWc. ' l^ faith he, the Middle
* Order had been wanting fo long as is fuppofed, viz. by Dr. Hm-
* mond, the Government of the Church would not have been for-
' med after that {thejewijh) Plat Form; which, as /^/^//>/:;^«/^/^ and
' the Jftvs inform ui,, had thcfefeveral Offices in it., Thefamemaybe
' faidof'.holeu'liomake the Hidcrs or fresLyten to be anfwerableto
f xheSe^-enty, apoomced by Chnli as inferiour Officers under the
' Apoftles, and rakt this yn Argument of an Inequality betwixt
* Bifliopsand Prcsby.ers, elhbLIl]ed in the Church by Chrift. Thus
Dr. Whitby, The Prtshyttriiins then are obliged to Dr. Hammond
foreafing them oithnei^Q moft noifie Arguments of their Adverfaries.
ARTICLE V.
Wherein Mr. Rhind^x Vroof of Prelacy from
Tejiimonies of Antiquity, is Examined.
From P, 85 to P. III.
HAVING cleared our Hands of the Arguments from the
Scripture, we proceed next to confider the Teftimonies
from Antiquity. Mr. Rhind is at a gieat deal of Pains lor fix
Tages together to perfwade the Presbyterians to appeal to the An^
cients; and runs through all the common Places of Rhetorick to
Ihew how competent and unexceptionable Witneffes they are.
But all this is wretched Affectation: For FtrH^ the Epi/copal AU'
thors themfelves own that the Presbyterians have the Fathers on
their fide. We heard before Dr. Bedtll juftifying Medina in own-
ing that Ambrofej Augtiftin^ Sedultus, Primafius^ Qhryjo^om^ Theo*
122 ^De fence of the Chap. //,
^oret, Oecummlus and TheophyU^t are on the Vresbyterian Side, This
then was only a Stroke of Mr. Rhwd\ Politicks to gull his Read-
er into a Belief that the Fathers arc againft the Pres(?jteria??s. 2dly^
In all Cafes the Presbyterians are content to be concluded by the
Teftimony of the Fathers, or to give a good Reafon why they
cannot. And I know no Clafs of Chriftians that goes further, or
gives an implicice AfTent to their Dilates. The Fathers Them-
felves required no fuch Thing of fuch as were to come after therPj,
and in a Thoufand Places have defired their Readers to try before
they trufied, . And I'm fure there is abundance of Reafon fordo,
ing fo. For there is no Man that has dipped ever fo little into the
Study of 'em, but is convinced, that any that would fwallow their
Do6\rines by the Lump mud at once believe the greateft abfur-
dities. and moft palpable Contradi8,ions ; and none have noticed
this - with greater Freedom than the Church of England Di-
vines. * The Scripture, //?/>/? Or. Sherlock(^f^ is all of a Piece, every
* Part of it agrees with the reft; the Fathers many Times contra*
* dicl themfelves and each other: Ar^d He tells, how it has often
^ made him fmile, with a Mixture of Pity and Indignation to fee
* what a great Noife the Roman Difputants made among Women
* and Children and the meaneft fort of people with QiJOtations
* out of Fathers and Councils, vi'hom they pretend to be all on -
* their Side. I fhall be glad if this be not the CharaQer of fome
other Folks as well '/is the Roman Difputants., . To the fame Pur-
pofe the Incomparable Chillmgwonh (^). . ' I for my parr, faith
' He, after a long, and fas I verily believe and hope) impartial :
^ Search of the true way to Eternal Happinefs, do profefs plainly,
^ that I cannot find any reft for the Sole of my Feet, but upon this
* Rock only, viz. the Scripture. I fee plainly and v('ith my own Eyesp
* Councils againft Councils, fome Fathers againft oihers,the fame Fa-
^ thers againft themfelves,aConfent of Fathers of one Age againft a
^ Confent of Fathers of another Age, and the Church of one Age
* againft the Church of another Age. Thus He. And thus from
two of the greateft Men the Church of England cou'd ever boaft
of .
[f] Prefervative againft fo;f>_y Part I Chap, ad SeSt, ad.
t C6i,l'.''0C' Rs^k. a Safeway thap. VI Sea. /S. .
Seft. V. Presbyterian Government: 12 3
of we may learn what habile Witnefles the Fathers are, and how
great Weight will hang upon their Teftimony: For, if fuch a
CharaQer of the Fathers be both Senfe and Truth in the Mouths
of thefe great Men when difputing againfi: the RomaniHs^ is it
poflible but it muft be the fame in the Mouths of Presi?)teria»s
when difputing againft the Frelatifts ? But indeed the Presbyterians
need no fuch Common-Place Confiderations for defending them-
felves. So far as Mr. Rhind has gone I am content the Debate be
compromiftd, and referred to the Fathers and the Teftimony of
Antiquity.
He infifts on Five viz, Jgnatim^ Clemens RomnmSj the Emperout
'Jidrian^ hen^m '^v\^Teriullian, All which 1 fhallconfider in Order.
The Firflis/g»4//«/, ' who, yW/// He p. 91,
* was conftituted Bifliop of Antioch^ upon IGNATtVS
* the Death of Ex'c?^/^, the immediate Succeil- •
* or of Saint Peter^ and who in His Ep'tfiles teftifies moft favourably
' for Epifcopacj. To which it is anfwered. In the jirft Place,
'Tis ridiculous to affirm that S. Peter was Bifhop of Antioch ; the
Apoftolick CharaQer and Office being inconfiftant with the fixed
Charge of any particular See. 2diy, Suppofeing it had not been fo,
yet both Chryfojlom and Theodoret (/>) affirm Igmtius to have fuc-
Geeded immediatly not to Evodim but to Peter \i\mk\L But wave-
ing thefe Things, I anfwer Thirdly, That the Epiftles of Ignat^ns
are fo far from teftifying favourably for the Modern Epifcopacy,
that they quite deftroy it, and the Principles upon which it is pre-
tended to be built. This I hope to make good to every Man's
ConviQion by the FOUR following Particulars.
In the Firlt Place. Suppofeing that Epijcopacy had obtain'd at
the Time when Ignatius wrote His Epiftles, yet this is fo far from
being an Argument that it had obtain'd in the Apoitolick Age,
that the whole ftrain of thefe Epiftles are an Evidence of the con-
trary. This, I am aware, will at firft be thought a very furpriz-
ing AfTertion; But I Ihall make it good from an unexception-
Q.2 able
n h J Cbryfofi. de Tranflac S. J^mU]. neodoT' de Iinmut. Dia/. l.
124 Defence of the . Chap. ///
r.bleHand, I mean Mr. Dodwell (/), The matter In Short is this.
The Presbyterians had oftimes excepted againft the IgnatUn Epiftles
cither as not Genuine, or at leaft as vitiat and corrupted, On this
Head, becaufe they infifl: fo much on the Abfolute Power of the
Bifhop; they could not believe that fuch Rhodomomado Expreflions
as arc ufed on that Subjed were confiltent with the Spirit, Cha-
raQer or Circumftances of Ignatius when he wrote his Epiftles.
>Ir. Dodivell faw the Force of this Objeftion ; and therefore care-
fully applies Himfelf to take it ofF. But how does he it? Plain-
\y by telling us, that the Reafon, why Ignatius infilled fo much
^ on the Power of the Bifhop, was becaufe Efifcopacy was an Or-
* der but mwly introduced into the Church, that therefore it was
^ mcefiry that n^ith all Hts might He fliould affeit their ;?fji; Rights,
* and urge and eliablifli a Power formerly unhio^^n. In a Word,'
Epifcopdcy was not inftitnted, fays Mi'. Dodwell^ till the Year CVl.
IgnMius wrote His Epiiiles in the Year \\6 fties Bifliop Lloyd^"\ti
the Year no faies Euftbiw^ in the Year 107 faies Bifliop VJher^
By the longelt of thek Accounts Epifcopacy was but of ten years
ftanding when Igndtius wrote, and by the fhorteft of them but of
C7^e. And now Tet the Reader fay if thele Epiftleswill prove that
Epifcopacy obtained in the Apofbolick Age.
Secondly, I ask Mr. Rhirjd if any where in trhefe Epiftles He
finds a Bifhop that bad moe than one Congregation under His
Charge. The Epifcopal Writers have oftimes been called on to
fhew this; they have never done it to this Day, and I believe no
■wife man will ever attempt it: For Nothing is more plain from
thefe Epiftles, than that the Bifhops whole Charge met in one
Place and communicate at one Altar. Whether then does this look
like the Scots Presbyterian or the £^^///Z? Diocefan Bifhop?
Thirdly, Through all the Ignatian- Epifties, as 1 have iliewn be-
fore, the Presbyters are always faid to reprefefht the Apofties, the
Bijho^snzvQv, Now upon this I ask jft How Mr^Rhi^d^s Argu-
menf.
[ 1 ] Paixnef Se£t. 2J-. p. loj-. io!j. Hinc etiam conftar, Hullam fuifle ('quam Crediderunt TgnatiXH-^
*(um Epidolaium Adverfanj, noftrwiim rationumnefcij) AifeiSatiouem, immo uecdTanum tuifle,. iit wov.s
I]f)r$KX^eSpiiv jura enixis viribus an'ereieiitur. Nam primu Pote[la.tis ilhus in Epii'copos devoli*ione
majAii neceflaii.un erat ut i^nota .mte.i Poteftus urgeietiir acque ftabileretur.— ---Noftix aucem Rau(jn3|
•fttfjiduDt J4ai nujicr,tm Iniili dUm tpjitopyriun Pocellaccro, turn rfcJfo ilUm C(immejid>irej Ignaiius,
Scdi.V, Presbyterian Government] 125
raent holds that the Bi/Jjops fucceed the Jpoflks, and the Preshyten
the Seventy, 2dly, If the Presbjters lucceed the yipoUies, how is it
poffible but that they muft have the Power oF Ordination and Ju-
rifdidion as well as of Preaching and difpenfing the Sacraments ?
Surely the Apoftles had ir, how tl^en can the Presbyters their Suc-
ceffors want itf ^dly, Seeing by the Igmthrt DoQrine the Pres-
byters were in Place of the Apoftles, How is it True that the
Presbyters cannot do any Faftoral ad in their own Right, but as
the Bifliops Delegates. The Apoftles had our Lord Jefus Chrift
for their Immediate Superior,, why fliould it be otherwife with
the Presbyters their Succefforsf
Fourthly. The J^;?^/M/2presbytry had a Share in the Government,
as appears from many Places of thele Epiftks. ' And that being Sub-
' jed to your Bifhop and his Ptesbjtrj^ ye may be whollyand tho--
' rou;^hly fandifi°d i^k). Obeying your Biftiop and the Fr^i^j/r; with
'in tire A [Ted ion (/j.But be ye united to your Bifliopand thofe
' whoprefide over you, that /s^the Presbjters Qn), So neither do ye
* any thing without your Bifliop and P^f j^j'/t/rj (^ri). But h& that is
* without,that.is,doesany Thing without the BiQiop Presbyters and
'Deacons, is not par® in his Confcience (6), Being Subject toyouc
' ' Bifhop as to the Command of God and fo likewife to the Presbjtry^
Q) Thus it was in the Ignatidn Times. But where now is there
any fuch Thing as this in the Church o^ England which Mr. RhinA
has joined ? Are not the Presbyters entirely deprived of the Exercife
of- Difcipline ? Nay are not the Lay^ Chancellotirs rilen up againft the .
Bifliopsthemfelves their Creaters? Have they notengrofted the.
Difcipline wholly into their Hands? Hear Dr. B«r;?e^ (^) even
before he became Revolutioner. ' Our Ecckfiaftical Courts, /^/V/'/'^j,
* are not in the Hands of our BiQiops and their Clergy, but put over
' toahQCtviltans^ where too often Feesare more ftridly looked after.
* than the Curredion of Manners.— Excommunication h3s become a
' Kind of Secular Sentence, and is hardly nowconfidcred asa Spiri-.
' tual Cenfure, being judged and given out by Lay Men, and oiten
, upon^
[kj Ep.tocheEphej.Sect.il. [1] Ibid.ScitXX. [m] Ep. to the.Ma^nes. Scft. VI. [n] Ibid. Sed. VU...
ffil^p.cotheTiatiea. VII. [pj Ibid. Sea.XIII.. [4J Pietacew II. Vol. Hift. Reform. .
:i25 Defence of the Chap. IL
* upon Grounds, which, to fpeak moderatly , do not merit fo fevere and
^ dreadful! a Sentence. Before I go further I cannot but take Notice
that Mr. Rh'md^ in fumming up the Evidence from %»<«//»i'sEpiftIes5
lias not dealt fairly when he faies p. 94. That this Exercife of the Epif-
,CO^?A Authority over fubordinate Fresbjters and Deacons rvasmt peculiar
to the Churches to which 6\ Ignatius dire^ed his EpiBles^ but did EX-
TEND {toufethatSaintsWords) to the utmofi Bounds of the Earth \
ivhich, faith he, in my Opinion, djfertsthe UNIVERSAL Exercife
of t he Epikopal Office, Did Ignatius ufe that Word EXTEND, I
mean the Gr^^^t that fignifiesit? If not how can the UNIVERSAL
EXERCISE ofthe Epifcopal Office be inferred upon it? And yet
'tis certain firft that He did not ufe it but a Greek Word ^ which
flgnifies Defined or Appointed^ and thac too without any Men-
tion of the Earth in the Claufe. Secondly, That Bifhops did not
at thac Time extend to the utmoffc Bounds of the Earth: For,
Mr. Dodivell gives it as the very Reafon why Ignatius infifted fo
jnuchonthe Epifcopal Authority, becaufe it had not yet univerf-
ally obtained. * The Power ofthe Bifhops, y^/V^ //^ ( r'^, was
* fo long to be urged till it fhould be univerfally received, and
* Men were brought in Ufe to obey it. Why then did Mr.Rhind
in his Reafonin^ ufe the Word EXTEND inftead of APPOINT-
ED, efpecially when before p. 93 He had ufed the Word AP-
POINTED in citeingf Did he not defign to take Advantage of
his Reader's Inadvertency ? But how fhall his Conclufion of the
Vniverfal Exercife of the Epifc(ipal Office in Ignatiu\ Time ftand,
when it is founded upon a falfe Bottom? This now is oiir firll
Defence againfl the Ignatian Epiftles, that they quite deftroy the
Modern Epifcopacy and the Principles on which it is built, which
I muft needs Ifill believe they do, till I have got a fatisfying
Anfwer to the former Particulars. I add
Secondly, That thefe Ignatian EpifHes, as to the main oftheContrO'
■^erfie^ contain Nothing contrary to the Presbyterian Scheme. Andic
is
[1] Partner. Sea. 25-. p. 10^. Taiuifper cerce uigenda era: »ova ilia Poceflas tlum a Subditis paffijureci-
.Jeretur, & duia Ulms Obfcjuio Hojaiiues ailueviUcut, '
Sed. V^ Presbyterian Government. 127
IS a great Encouragement to me to venture on that AflTertion that
fo great a Man as 6V/7//7?^^-/f/ has done it before me. ' In all thofe
* thirty {iveTeftimonics,/^/V/;//^(-f),producedoucof/(T;7^////j'sEpiftles
* for Epifcopacy, lean meet but with one which is brought to prove
* the leaft Semblance of an InftitutionofChriflfor Epifcopacy, and
' ifl be not much deceived, theSenfe of that Place is clearly mifta-
' ken too—. Ilaid, as to the main of the Controverfte^ to prevent trif-
fleing in any Body thatfliall attempt toanfwer this. Mr. R/;;WaI-
ledges on the Presbyterians that they affirm the Jgrjatian Bifiop to cor -^
refpond to their Parif/j Mintjier \ the Presb-^ters and Deacons to their RuU
ing Eiders and Deacons, p.ioi. I donotknow any Presbyterian Au-
thor that ever wro!-^ fo widely, I do not believe ever any of them
did," and want to have them named. But if any of them ever did £o,
I here enter my DilTent from them. 'Tis certain the Presbyterian
Deacons donotcorrefpond to the ^/?^///i« Deacons, becaufe the %-
t?atian Deacons do not correfpondto the Scripttire Deacon/. 'Tis evi-
dent from ^^j 6 that the Deacons were inftituted to ferve Tables^
and take Care of the Poor and ©f the Churches Stock. The very Rea-
fon of their Inftitution was thegiveing Relief to the Apoftles, who
could not at once attend the Word of God and ferve Tables. And to
this Mr. Dodrveil accords ( t ) declareing that the firfi Inflitution of
the Office of Deacon fiip was for the Ssiributing of the Treafures of
the Church. But fuch is not the Ignatian Deacon: Fc^r, faith He
(7/), the Deacons are fwt the Mtnilkrs of Meat and Drink hut of the
Church. 'Tis certain likewife ihai^liSe Presbyterian Parifh Mini-
fter does not correfpond to the Ignatian Bifhop as to His Intenfive
Power. The Presbyterians believe that the Power afcribed to the
Ignatian Bifhop is greater than ought to be allowed to any Crea-
ture that is not under an Infallible Condu6l. For Inffance, when
k is fa id -j- What foe ver the Bi/Jjup approves is acceptable to God, But
then I affirm that the Ignatian Bifliop as to His Extenfive Powt^v
correfponds better to the Presbyterian Parifli Miniiier than to the
Engl/Jh Diocefan Bifliop, feeing, as I obferved before,- the /^/?«^/^^
Bllhop's whole Charge did meet io one Place and communicate at
one
[s] Irenic. p. 30^. Edit. I. [t"] One Priefthood. Chap.XlI.Scia. 3". p. 55^.. [vJ-Ep. t<^ the TiaJ ^
?ea. a. . f Ep. to the Smyin, SeSt. Vill, -.•
jog Defence of the Chap.//,
one Altar. I affirm likewife, that there is not the leaft Hun in
all the Ign^thw Epiftles of an Inaparity among the Paftors of the '
Church, I take Paftors here in the current Ecclefiaftical Senl'eof that
Word iov pich as Uhour in the Word and Do^rine, for otherwife I
know that the Word P^f/wmay fignifie any Officer or Governour
whatfomever.
And this now brings me to the main Point in Debate: For I know
the Reader will prefently ask, what I make of the Ignatim Presbyters,
were not they Paftors in the current Ecclefiaftical Senfe of that Word ?
I affirm pofitivcly that there is no Hint in all the 7^;?^f/4« Epiftles
that they were, and that nothing Mr. Rhmd\\-\s produced proves that
there is any fuch Hint in theme He has but two Arguments for chat
Furpole, and that I may not wrong him, I fhall fet them down fully
in his own Words.
The firft runs thus p. to^. * I fay, that the Presbyters mentioned
' by Ignatius^ did preach and adminiftrate the Sacraments : Thus
* in the Epiftle to the i^myrn. Let that Eucharift be looked upon as
' firm and jult, which is either offered by the Bifhop, or by him to
^ whom the Bifliop has given his Confent. Aga'in^ 'Tis not lawfull
* without the Bilhop, neither to Baptize nor to celebrate the Sacra-
* ment, but whatfoever he fliall approve of, that is alfo well pleafing
' to God ; which plainly proves, that though the Bifhop was inveft-
* ed with the Chief Power of Difpenfing thefe Holy Ordinances, } et
* might the Presbyters perform them by his Allowance, and there-
* fore they were not Elders aomrding to the Preshyterian Fafhion ; fee-
' ing they pretend to no fuch ^5^ver, nor can their Parifh Mmifter
^ ( v^ ho, they fay, is the true l^nattan Bilhop ) communicate the fame
* to ihem. Thus he.
Beiore lanfwer direfily, Imuftgive a literal Tranflnion of the
twoPa(r:.ges produced by him trom the Original*. Thetirftruns
thus, Let that tuchanji be beiafirm^ which is under the B^JJjop or to whom
he (hill ,pei mic. Tiie other runs thus, It ts not ImjuUwuhout the Bi-
jh'f ttfher to Baptize^ or to make 4 Love feaft But whatever he jhall ap*
prove
SeO:. V» Presbyterian Government. 129^
ffovej the fame is alfo m/I'pka{If^g to God. Now T ask ift, Is there In
either of ihefe Teftimonies the leaft Intimation that the Presbyters did
Preach? No. Neither thQWor(] Preaching ^ nor any Thing Equiva-
lent to it, is mentioned in either of them : Nor indeed any where elfe
in ihefe EpilUes is Pr£'.fJ;/;?(Tafcribed to the Presbyter. 2dly, Is there
the leaft Intim.uion in cither of thefe leftimonies that the Presbyters
admintjlrate the Sacraments ? No. Presbyters are not fo much as named
in either of them, nor is there the leaft Hint given that cither Bapti-
zeing or giveing the Eucharift-was more peculiarto the Presbyters
than to any of the Laity. Upon the whole then it does not appear by
tliefe Teftimonies, that the ^»^//^«» Presbyters could either Preach ot
adrnimjirate the Sacraments.
I know noiliing can be reponed to this, unlefs it be faid, thatic
ought to be fuppofed thitths Bifliop would not give his C(9-^/'f«no
any to Baptize or to make a Love Feaft but to the Presbyters. But this
is a plain begging the Q-jeilion, and is contrary to what the Fathers
have taught us : For, faith Amhrofe or Hilary the Roman Deacon w ho
wroiethe Commentaries annexed to ArhbroJt\ Works {x) ' that the
* Chrillidn People might encreafe and be multiplied, ijn the Beginning
* it w^as allowed to all Perfons both to preach the Gofpel, and to Bap-
* tize, and to explain the Scriptures in the Cliurch. And particularly
as to Baptifm 'tis known thai it was ufually difpenfed by Lay 1 erfons
and r^r/ft///4/2 exprefly alTertsthe Lawfulnefs of it, as wefliall Hear
when we come to his Teft imony ; and the forecited, Amhrofe or H/-
/^ry relates the Praclice of it even in the Prefenceof the Apcftles.
* At ^x'^Xy faith he (y)^ all Taught, and all Baptized on whatever Days
* or Tmies Occafion offered. For Philip did not wait for a Time
'or a Day in which he might Baptize the Eunuch.^ neither did hein-
* lerpofea Fuft. Noi'did P^»/and ^'//^j delay but that they inftant-
* ly Baptized the Jay lour v/ith all his Houfe. Neither had F^rer
* Deacons, or fought a Day wherem to Baptize Ccr^tV/Ai with all his
a Houfe:
[x] Ut ergocrefceret PUbs & miiltiplicaretiir, orrnibus inter iniria corxefTum eft &evangcliz:irc, &
Baptizsrc, & Scripturas in Kcclefis explanaie. Ambrof. Vol. i.Tom. 3. p. 139- in Enhef. cap. IV.
[y] Piimiim cnini omncsc'ocebant, & omiies baptiiabanr, quibufcniiqiie dicbnsUiiiVec Occafio. Nee enim
PliiLppusrempusquaifivir auc dicmquo Ennachumbaptiiarer, iieqiie Jejuni umnuerpoliur. Ncqvie rai.li!', &
Siias tcnipiis diftuleruin quo Optioncm Caiceiis bapniaienc cum omnibus Aiis. Ncqie Petrus Diacoiios liabuic,
aiu diem quasfivit quaiido Cornclium num oinni Domo ejus bapciiaviC. Nee ipie, ie^ bapciiaie jullit fiatiibus
qui cumilloierancad Conicluimabjoppe, tAmbrof. ubi fupia.
^jo Defence of the Chap! //.
* Houfe: Nor did hehimfelf Baptize them, but commanded the
' Brethren who came with Him from Joppa to do it. Thus he.
Ore then might as well fay that the E^ghfl? Mid wives are Presbyters^
becaufe they have atleaft the Connivance of the Bifhop to Baptize ;.
as fay, that thefein Igrtatius \s'ho Baptized with the Bifliop's Con-
lent were Presbyters, when not only Deacons might do it ; which
Mr. Rhi»d himfelf will not deny, but every L^j/Ferfon too. And
as to the other Sacrament viz.. the Eucharift there is no Men-
tion in either of the two Teftimonies of Co^-'/^^r/i?^;;^ it, and as
for the Diflribution of it, 'tis certain that not only Deacons but
even Lay Perfons ufed to be employed about it. Thus Chrjfof-
torn tells us (.s) 'That it was given in Charge tothe Deacons -
* to keep notorioufly unworthy Perfons from the Table, and that
* the Holy Gifts fhould not be diftributed to them. And by the Fourth
Council of Carthage (^a ) it is allowed thai in Cafe of Necefftty the
DeacofJ, the Presbyter being frefenty may being ordered give the Eucha*
rrHofthe Body of Chriji to the People. And fuHin Martyr (^ ) tells
us that it was ufual in his Days for the Deacons to carry the Eu-
charift to the Abfents, But not the Deacons only, but even Lay
Perfons were ibmetimes thus employed. Thus Eujehius tells us
(c) o^ Serapion thu defireing the Eucharift on his Death Bed, He
lent his Grand Child to bring a Presbyter to adminifter
it to him. The. Presbyter happened to be fick and was not
able to come ; but he fent the Eucharift wuh the Boy ordering him
to adminifter it to his Grand Father which accordingly was dene, .
And who knows not that the Eucharift ufed to be given to Intdnis
after their Baptifm? But! very much doubt if there was alwajs
a Church Officer at the doing of it. . i^hinly the Elements ufed
robs confecrated by the Bifhop, and the People oft time^ kept them^ .
and by his allowance gave them toothers, . How then does it ap-
pear from the Teftimonies produced by Mr. Rhmd, that the 7^;;^-
tim Pnsbyters did eitherPreach or Admimftrate the Sacramenis,when
there .
fa] Homil. 82. inEvang. Match.
[aj Ut Diaconus prKfqnte .Piesbytero Euthiiiftiam Corporis ChrUfci Topulo, ^ neceiTuas Cogac^ j,uf--
fus Eroget. Can. 38. Caianzi. Sum. Coucil.
[b] Apol. 2. p. 57^ f;dic. Colonioe. a$8o'.
I cj Hift. Ecclef. JLil?. ^. .Cap. ^i^^ ^.
Scdt. V^ Presbyterkn Government] 131
there is neitber Mention in either of them o^ Preslfyters ; nor, fup»
pofe there were, is there any Thing afcribed to them but what
might be and was frequently done by Deacons^ yea by every Lay
Chriftan ? So much for his firft Argument.
Hia Second is in thefe Words p. 103, 104. ' But I add, that
* the Presbyters in St. Ignatius^ Days, were Subject to the BiQiop •
^ This docs folly appear frcm the Tedimonies formerly cited : If
* then thefe Presbyters were fuch as the Modern Ruling Elders,
* either this their SubjeOion mufl: relate to the Bifliop's Superior
^ Power in the Adminiftration of Sacraments and Ordination, or
^ to the Power of Jjrifdi£lion! Not the former; for how can they
* be accountable ia thefe refpe^s, when they are not fuppofed to
* be at all concern'd in thefe Matters; and to fay that this Sub-
^ je6ion relates to ABs of Jurifdidion, is to deftroy that Parity
' of Power, of which all Presbyters, whether Preaching or Rul-
* ing are equally pofleflfed according to the Presbyterians, Thus he.
The Anfwer to which is very ealie, and therefore may be very
Short. Through all the JgnAtian Epiftles there is no Subjedion re-
quired from the Presbyters to the Bifhop but what every Presby-
terian Ruling Elder will own, and that too, agreeably to
Presbyterian Principles, to be his Duty to pay to the Mi-
nifter. Every Presbyterian Ruling Elder owns the Minifter to be
an Officer Superior to himfelf as' having the Key of Doctrine as
well as of Difciplwe, whereas himfelf has that of IHfafltne only.
Every Presbyterian Ruling Elder gives, though not a Negative,
yet the Precedency to the Minilter m all A61s of Jurifdidtion. In
a Word every Presbyterian Ruling Elder is ready to yeild all Re~
verence to the Minifter, which is all that is required of the Ignatiaft
Presbyter to the BiQiop. So much for his Second Argument, ^d
this is our Second Defence again ft the Ig»atian Epiftles, That, as
to the Main of the Cmtroverfie^ they contain Nothing contrary to
the Presbyterian Scheme. And I hope every Reader is fatisfied
that there is no more needfull on this Su*-:je<S:. Yet becaufe Mr.
Rbind mentions another i! eft nee which the Presbyterians make a-
gainft them viz. That thefe Episilts are either Spurious or Corrupted:
Tho' I do not think fuch a Defence needfull, yet I homologate the
fame, and juftify my Brethren in it. And therefore
R 2 la
132 * P<^enceofthe Chnx). II.
In the Third Place. I aflfert that thefe Eplflles which go under
the Name of Ignatius either are not Genuine, or at lea ft that tliey
sre \itiate and inrerpohted. For proveins^ thfs, I am uot to infift on
what tho^ Learned . eS>/fc?/t<'^ has iuggeftt^d (^j that rhe Story of
tranfportmg Vi^nattus from Antmhwih^K^ he was condem.ned, to Rome
where he fuffered, and of his many Rxcudaons by the Way, and
of the Fieedom he got to write rhefc Epillles, fmells rank of the
Legend; leeing /^w^r/;:/; himfelf informs us that H^wa^ bound to
ten LeapirdSf that is to f.%y^to fuch a BAK'd of ^oulditrs j nbo^thoagh trt/it-
edivnh all mmmr of ]<j-ndnejs^ mre the ivo^ji for it, V/aveing this,
I affirm that nothing iVIr. /^/'/W has Advanced, though he has takei^t
ver.y great pains on this Farticular, is in the- leaft fiiilicient to- vin-
dicate ihtm.
He infiifs on thelt, Six Topicks.* I. That feveral Fathers dom.enrioa
thcfe Epiftles, and cite fundry PiUTagesfrom th.m which are robe
found in rhofe n3W extant. II. That Cal-vm who was a Part^ was
the firft who eve'* alledged fuch. an Ihrerpol^rion. HI. That at
\q-a^ Voffius's and Z')j!jtr''s Editions of tliefe Hpiftlesare the Genume
llfue of that Holy Father. IV. That fuch an luterpoluon was
hardly if at all;Fra8icab!e. V. That the ailedging that thde Faf-
fages which aifert the Epifcopal Authority are Interpolations is a
mean begging of the QljePcion. ,VI. That noonecan give a reafon-
ab!e account why any fuch Interpolation fliould have been aitem-
pted. Of each of thefe in order.
I. He alledges p. 95. 96. S. Po^ycarp, Ire/^^et^^ Ori^erf^ Eufehim^
Athanapus -and Theodure't, All which^ faith he, with many other Au*
thors do r/2entioii thefe E^ijlles and cite fundry Paffayes ft am them which
are to be found in thofe now extant. To which it is snfwered, that
tnis jroves only that Ignatim did write Epiftles, and that fome Sen-
tences of them are ftiU preferved. But how will it iollow thence^
either that thefe Epiftles are Genuine, or that they are not vitiat-
ed? Efpecially when we confider. ift, That 4// the Paft'ages
cited from Ignatius by the Ancients are not to be found even in the
beft Editions of him which we have. For Inftance, there 's a
Faflags
i 4.J ??• CO tlie R(im>ins Sedl. j. ^ .
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government. 135
Pa^'^ge cic^d by leromxhiis ff), Ig'fJat'ms an JpoHolick Man and-
Mart^r ivrtus holdiy. The Lord chuftd Jpojtlts who ivdre Sinners ah^ve
fill Men, Now, in which of the Jgn.^ttan Epi flics is there any fuch
PalTage to be found? Dr. Hammond anfwers ( g)^ Thxt it ma^
WcU he his faying, though it is not- found in thife Ep-flus : ^ju/i
as Our Saviour fpake m.ir.ji Things which are not written tn the Gof pells ^
But this is a meci" Whim; for lerom is not leltitieing about v. hit
Ignatius j poke but about what he wrote. This is a pretty goud Pre-
fwnnption that the Epiflles are at leafl: mutilats. 2dly, If the An-
cients citeing of hioi bean Argument, Is it not very ftrangethat no
one of them has cited thtfe Palf^ges that are infifted on in Favours
of Erifcopacy ? Is it not Itrange that his Aiiihority was never in-
filled on in the Difpute with Aerius where there was fo fair Oc-
cafion for it ? VVouM not one be tempted from this to think that
fiich P^ITagcs are toifted w) ? ^dly, Some of thefe ExprelTions that
the Ancu^nisciie which ate now found in thefe EpilUes '^rc neither
cited ys from Ignatim, n^r as from Epiftles either of his or any Bo-
dy elfv\ For Indance, that Pa (Tjge which Mr. Rhi/ui p. 95. cites
ff cm Irenaus^ I am the iVht at of Goa andfljall be ground hy the i eeth of.
wild Btajhj that- Tmay bccor/.e the Bread of Jejus Chrifi^ though it is
found in Ignatius^s Epiftles, yet Irenaus does not fay that it was
writttn, much Icfs that it was %vritten in anEpiftit^i leaftof all that
it was written in any EpiQle from Ignatius, but only indcfinitly^-
One of our Brethren hath J aid. (//^, which Eufthius underlfands of
Ignatius,
. II. He alledges p. 97. that the Presbyterians cannot name an Author
Vphoever ailedgedjuch an interpolation btfore CAWin, whom all Men know
to have been a Party. And this (he thinks; might be allowed Tijujfuient
Anfwer. ^\\\s luificient AnfAcrot his islo grof^an imrofeing upon
People's Underftanding,that I am even amazed he fhou'd have been
fo very Prodigal of his Credit. The Vlacter is plaifily this. CaU
vin wiote that excellent Book of his Injhtuttons lu the Year 1 536.
Ihere^-
[f] Ignatius vir Apoftolicus etMirtyr fcnbit Aiidafler, Eligit Dcminus Apoftolos ,qui fiiper omries Ho-
mines I'eccatores eiaiu. Hierom DiaJ. 30011. Pelag. , [g) /inl. to cha Animadvtfi. or. the Diflcic, Chap. 3.
ScSt. I. .
■ [h J Quemadaiodum (juidamdenoftris dixit, prppcw MaiTyiium in Dsurn adjudkatus ad Bellu*. QuQiuany
'154 'Defence of the Chap. Ih
Therein he has Occafion to defend the Do£lrinc of the ever Bleff-
. ed Trinity, againfi: which Dodrine the AntitrimtarUns objeded
the Authority and Teftimony of Ignatius. Calvm in Anfwer there-
to reje8s T/) the faid pretended Authority, and gives a very
bad Charader of the Work. * As for Ignatius (^ faith he J let
^ thefe who attribute any Thing to his Authority prove that the
^ Apoftles made a Law about Lent and fuch Hke Corruptions:
* There is Nothing more ftinkingthan that Trafh which is pub*
* liflied under the Name o^ Ignatius. Whence the Impudence of
' fuch is thelefs tolerable, who furnidi themfelves with fuch For-
' geries wherewith to impofe on the World. Now, will the Read-
er ask, Did Calvin find any fuch thing in Ignatius as Expreffions
againft the Do£lrine of the Trinity, a pretended Apoftolick Law
for obferving Leni^ and fuch like Corruptions? Yes indeed, in the
Old Editions, which alone were known in Calvin's Time, there
was a great deal of fuch Stuff; as even Coke ^ Church of England
Divine has noticed ( ^ ). Thus, in the Epiftle to thofe of Tarfus,
it is mentioned as one of the Herefies dilleminate by Satan, that
Chrifi ivas God over all. And in the Epiftle to the Philtppians^ it
is denyed that the IVord which rvasmade Fltjh dwelt tn Man. And ic
is aflerted, that ' if any faft on the Sabbath Day he is a Murderer
* of Chrirt ; and that if any keep Eafter with the Jews he is par-
* taker with thofe who flew the Lord and his Apoftles. And in the
Epiftle to the Antiochians^ Wives are difcharged to call their Huf-
bands by their own proper Name. In a word, the Divines of the
Church of Rome cited thefe Epiftles to prove that the Blelfed Vir-
gin Mary was void of all Sin. I hope it is plain that a? feme of
thefe Things were great Fooleries^ fo others of them were Grofs
Heyefips, And muft then Calvin be traduced as a Party- Man bev
caufe he would not Sacrifice the fundamental Doflrines of Chri-
ilianity to the Reputation of Ignatiui*^ Epiftles? But let us hear
Df. Wah Bilhop of Lincoln ( /). ^ Before I enter upon that Ac-
count
[ i ] Ignatium quod obtcndunr, fi velinc quicquam habere momenti, probenc Apoflolos legem tulifle
tfe Qiuciragtlima ■& riin:Iibiis Con-uptelis : Nihil Na:nijs iilis qua: fub Ignatij nomine editx func, piuidius.
Qiio minus colerabilis cit torum impudencia qui uUbus Larvis ad falleudum fe inflruunc. Cdvm. InlUt,
Lib. r. Cup. 15. Seci. 29
[/J Cenfura. quoiundam Script, vet. (\) The Genuine Epiftles of the Ap&Holical Fathers II. Edit*
Sed. F. Presbyterian Government 135
* count which it will be fitting for me to give of the Epiftles of
^ S. Ignatius, it will be neceffary for me to obferve, that there have
* been confiderable Differences in the Editions of the Epiftles of this
*'Holy Man, no lefs than in the Judgment of our latter Criticks
'concerning them. To pafs by the firftj and mod imperfeQ of
* them, the beH that for a lon^ Time was extant^ contained not
* only a gre.tt Number of E piffles /^//T)' afcribed to this Author,
* but even thofe that were Genuine fo altered and corrupted, tPjat
^ it tvxs ha^'d to find out the true Ignatius in them. The/''/ that began
* to remedy this Conf.fion, and to reftore this great Writer to
* His primitive Simplicity, was our moff Reverend and Learned
* Arch Bifliop X^/^?>', in his Edition of them at Oxford Anno 1644,
Thus Dr. Wake. Now if, by the Judgment of the moff Learned
of the Epifcopaliansf there was not fo much as any tolerable Copy
of the I^natian Epiftles extant till the Year 1644, that is, 108 Years
after Calvin hid excepted againff them ; who that has not thrown
off all Modeffy would talk at Mr Rhtnd'*s Rate, or would feck to
blaft the Fame of thu Great Man Calvin in a Matter wherein the
Epifcopalians themfelves have juftified him; or would reprefenc
Iiim as a Party Man^ when he was defending the Common Caufe
of Chriffianity. But it fsems Ignatius^s Epift'es m*jff ftand, though
the DoOrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our l^leiTtid S.Hvi-
our fliould Sink. - Dear Epifcopacy,what art thou not worth ! Who
would not Sell even his Religion to purchafe Thee^ without which '
all Religion is Nothing?
IlL He adds p. 97. ' That however the Name of the Holy
* Man Ignatius may have been abufed by ignorant or dtfigning
' Men, who fathered upon him their own tpurious or interpolated
* Work, yet th6 Epiffles of X/jf^'b'and ri#//i's Edition nrehi^ Ge-
nuine Iflfue. But does not r.)r. Z^/^^/te himftlf own ( w ) ' I'hat no
* 'one that Reads (t ven thefe Editions of; them with ^/-^ care or Judg- ■
* ment can make any doubt of it, but that Letters or Words have
* been miffaken, and perhaps even J'lctes of feme Sentence^ too
* 'corrupted. ^ And does not every one know what a great Ahera-
tion.ihe.Miftake of one Letter foaiCiimes- will make? i 0^11 g.ve
one -
[niJ'Ubi Supra, p.
1^6 Defence of the Chap. L
one fignallnftance of this, which is related by Dr. l^^ake ( »). In the
Mis of the Martyrdom of S Poljcarp^?iS fet out from the Barroccia» Ma-
nufcript by Archbifliop Vfijer^ there is this PafTage. ' That the
' Soiildier or OiBcer having (Iruck his Launce into the Side of the
^ ^\im, there came forth a P/g^o;?, togeiher with a great Quantity of
* Blood. Here is a fair Flump Miracle. A Pigeon comeing out
of a Man's Side being a very curious Sight; but now by the Alte-
ration of one fingle Letter in the Original '1", it dwindles into no Mi-
racle at all ; anrl the FaiTage imports only that there came our of
liis /t/> Side a great Qfiantity of Blood, the Greek Word which figni^
fies ihe.Lf/v, and that which fignifiesa Pigeon being near in Sound
to one another. If the Miftake ofone Letter can make fuch a Change,
U'hatma)' the Miftake ofa Worddo? And whatm.ay the Corrupti-
on of a Fiece of a Sentence do ? But Mr. Rh/rd is a Writer ot Cou-
rage who fiicks at nothing.
IV. He allsdges p. 99 Thai fuch an Interpolaiion was hardly^ if at
fill^ Practicable But pray why mt PracticAble ? For i[l. Lid Mr.
Rhind never hear of the Ignorance or Knavery of Tranfcribers ?
Does he not know thatthe Works of the Fathers were a long Time
in the Hands of Monks or others otthe like Stamp, who, with all
their Religion, were yetfo familiar and ufed fuch Freedoom with
the Fathers, as not only to pare their Nails that they might not be
fcratched by them ; But even to alter their Habit and Drefs,to fit them
to the Modes ot their own Times,and make 'em fa[hionable(oj? Even
the Vcpjan Greek Manufcript is not judged to be above eleven Hund-
red Years Old, that is, about 500 Years latter than the Times of -^-
?)a,iius\ and ho ^' corrupt the Church was about the Six Hundred
Year of God needs not be told. 2^/;, Is it not a very good Argu-
ment that the /p/y^r/^/i Epiftles might be interpolated, when it is plain
be^ ond Contradiction that they actually were interpolated ? What Se-
curity had Bifliop XJjher''s or JJaac l^ofius''s Copies againft the PofTibi-
hty of incerpolanon, any more than other Copies? Why, faith
Mr.
I ti j Ubi Supm p. jfc. 59.
1 iX'jh lit liifi
( o }Slierlock'3 l're;t;yauve aaainft Popery. Part. I. Chap. II Se<5l. 3. p. 74..
S^.F. Presbyterian Government] I'^y
Mr. Rhf/tdp. 98, * Confidering the great Simplicity ofthefe pious
* Times, it is fcarce credible that the greateft Ornaments of the Chri-
* ftian Church after the A\>ortles were wicked enough to be guilty
* of fo bafe a Fraud, or Weak enough to be impofcd on by ihefe
* who might be thus Wicked. Is not thisaFowerfuU Orator, who
will needs harangue People out of Matter of Fa£\ ? Let the Great
Ornaments of the Church be as far from being either fi^/V/re^' or H^^^X'
as Mr. R/;/Wpleafes, yet that fome Perfons were fo l^^tcked as to be
guilty of fuch a Fraud, and others fo Weak as to be impofed on
by it, is fo far from being incredible, that it is confeffed on all
Hands, that not only that, but even Twenty other Things of the
like Nature have been done. And all Mr. Rhina^s Reafonings
againll the Poffibility or PraQicablenefs of interpolating Ignatius^s
Epiftles labour under this one fmall Abfurdity, that if they prove
any Thing, they will prove that no falfe Writeing could have
been palmed on the Church, nor any Genuine one Corrupted. And
whence then camefo many fpurious Pieces, fuch as Abgarus\ Let-
ter to our BlelTed Saviour, and our Saviour's Anfwer to Him ;
which Eujebius tells us, with as much Confidence as he does the
Story of the /^/?4^/\i« Epiftles, he had faithfully Traflflated out of
the Syriack Language as he found them in the Archives o^ Edejfa ?
Whence came St. Ptf/z/'s P2piftle to the Laodiceans? Whence came
the Letters that paffed 'cwixt Semca and Him ? Whence came St.
Petef''sj St. Marias, St. Mxuhewh and St. Jamesh Liturgies, which
Mr. Rhi^jd ^ makes an Argument of, as being of confiderable An-
tiquity, though Dr. IVake^pj twenty Years ago declared, that the
leirned World feemed to be univerfalh agreed about the Falfity of
thiim. Not to fpeak of many others mentioned by //6'///;?g('r, Coks,
Du fift and Dr. IVake, whence came the JpoHolical Conjlitutions^
^hich Mr. IVhifion an Advocate for Eplfcopacy pflertsr 5' ) to be
the moH Sacred of the Canonical Books of the /Vnv Tesiament'^. Is there
any Age can be named upon which moe falfe Pieces were fathered
than the F/>f/ and 6V^c»;?4 ? And what Charm then was there in J^-
TiAtiui*^ Name, that none Ihould be fatheied on him ? Or why fhould
S we
• Serniin on Liturgy p. 14.. £ p J Ubi fupra Firll Edic. p. 14;. [ 1 j Elfiy upon ihe ApoIiol:c*l
Condhucionsi
i^^:5 Defime of the Chap. Tf.
we believe there were not, when the Contrary Is Manifeft and^
confelTcd by all the World? For let us take a fhort View o^
'em. %-
The TgnatUrt Epiftles, {^\QsCoke Cr),a Church of England Di-
vine, were firft pubhfbed at Strashurg Anno 1502. And though^
they are now only iVi/^";;?, V^t then they were eleven in Number^
In procefs of Time it feems they begoj another among 'em : For
when in theYe^r 1562 they werepublifhed in Greek ac\(^ Lathe at
P<jr/^, they were found to be TiWw, Atlength as if the Blefling
Be Fr UP full ancL Multiply had been pronounced on them, they encreaf.
ed to the Number of Fifteen with a Letter alfo annexed from the
Virgin Mary xo Ignatius^ Nor did they alter in Number only^butin
Bulk too ; Foe in fome Eiitions fome of . the Epillles were
twice as large as in others. Nocwithlbnding all this Variety, yet
fome ohh^Churzhoi Rome^Qaaifiusby Name, infuhed the World,
as our Epifcopal Friends do us now, with a great deal of Scorn, be*
caufe they doubted of any of thefe Epiftks. But the World is>
never all at once to be bullied out of their Senfes. Mafiraus a Pa-^
rifian Do8or publifhed anew Edition of them, and without Scruple,
difcarded Four of them as Apocryphal viz. two (o St,JohnihQ E^
vanoeliH^ One to the Virgin Mary^ and her Letter to hiro. Yer evea •
fo the remaining Twelve did not pleafe learnedMen. ArchbiQiop-
Vjber has afferted and proves (i) that5/jc of them were fpurious, ,
Six oi them mixed, and fo none of them fincere and Genuine,
Vedelius in the Year 1623. publiQied an Edition of the Ignatiatt:
Epiilles at Geneva-, but he went fo near to Work, and caftigate
them fo feverely ; that the Church of EngUr^d Divines were not
plealed with him T^j, as indeed they feldom are with any Thing
that comes from /i/^f Quarter, or almofl: any other except their own^
Hitherto then the ]g//atian Epiltles made but a forry Figure,
with all who were not willing to Sacrifice their Senie to their
Zeal. Atlength Archbifliop Vjhr lell upon two Copies of them<>
one in C^/»^/i%^5 another in BifhopA/^/^/^'^^^^'s Library ; , yet thefe.
were:
fr] Cenfiira (vi<"'Uiidaiii Script. Vec. p. j$o
(s; Difftrt. dc lip. Ijn. ,>^ol(.g.
£tj Mo/i/4;-. appar.,1,. ^Seci -i^.p. i^o^. ,,
5e(9:. F. Presbyterian Government^ 139
were not Originals but LAtine Tranflationsand thefe too very Bar-
barous. But then to fupply this Defed Ifaac Voffius found in tha
Medicean Library 2i Greek M^nufcript of them and pubhfbed it at
JmBerdam 1646. Yet, even after all this, the L^///;? Editions are
thought to be belt by learned Men; and Archbifhop XJ/Z^^r doubts
whether the Seventh Epiftle viz. that to Poljcarp be Genuine or not.
Nay he was fo ill fatisfied with it, that he would not publifh it
with the reft. Nor, faies D/. Wake fv), does Ifaac VoflTius him^
fe/f deny hut that there are fome ThhgS in it that may feem to render
it fufptcious, Befides, the Epiftle to the Romans was not found in
the Medicean or Florentine Manufcript ; but made up, in fome Mea-
fure, from the Latine Verfions, by thcCof^je^ures of learned Men,
asthefameDr.W^-«/('^ takes Notice ( x). And even as to the whole
-of the Epiftlesjthough the Doctor tranilated from the Textofr#y/,
yet he owns, that where a Place was manifeftly Imperfei} he has
fometimes taken the Liberty to exprefs his own Conjectures, And
now alter all let any Man, who can, doubt of the Poflibility or
Pradicablenefs of thefe Epiftles having been interpolated. But, adds
Mr. Rhtnd p. 9g, if that fhould be granted, ' I fee not how the
* Pf eshyter tarn can AniwQVihQ Enemies of our Religion, who com*
* plain that the like Freedom may have been ufed with the Bible
* in fome fundamental Points much about the fame Time. Fray,
Cood Mr. Rhi^d^ were the Ignattan Epiftles as univerfally fpread as
the Bible was? Of was it of as great Importance to ktcpthem un*
corrupted as the Scriptures'^, I do not think but either of thefe Thoughts
much more both jointly, befides what elfe might be added, would an-
fwer the Enemies of our Religion. Bur, to compleatthe Anfwer,
does not Mr. Rhind know that there were falfe Gofpels obtruded
upon the World, obtruded too '\t\ Ignatius\ own Days? Does he
not know that Ignatius himfelf miftock the Spurious Gofpel for the
True one ? Does he not know that Mr. Dodwell Himfelf has own-
ed that Ignattus was thus miftaken. * The Holy Martyr, jatfh
S 2 "^ bi
XtJ Ubi Supra II. Edit. p. 4.0. [xj Ibid. p. 41.
i'4^ Defence of the CBap. /Z.
* ^^ iy\ clid not cautioufly enough diftingulfli'twixt the Genuine
*' Gofpel of S. Matthew and the interpohted one which the Ebionit
* Hereticks now rageingin Jfia ufed. Nowif falfe Gofpels could
be minted in tbofe Days, could not f-^lfe /^^^^/^^Epiftlesbe fo too?
If fo great an Ornament of the Church as /^^^////jhimfelf could be
impofed on by them, why might not others as great Ornaments
be impofed on by taife or interpolated Pieces fathered on Him?
V. But Mr. Rhind p. 98. ' would know of His Adverfaries,
* what thefe Interpolations are. He hopes they will not alledg©
* thatthereaie any favouring the then or alter Herefies; and to
* fay that thefe FaiTd^eS) which aflcit the Diftinftion of EcclefiaflL-
*' cal Orders and the tpifcopd Authority, are of this kind, is a
*' mean begging of theQuertion; and fo much the meaner (till, that
' this can be proven from other iVonuments of that Age though'
* Ignatius had never written an Epiftle. For Anfwer. in the
firft Place, has he read the Authors on this Controverfie wnh a
&^rufutous £jc«c?//6/}' and knows nothing of what thefe Interpolations
are? Why then I recommend him to Coke, DaiHe^ Sdmafius^ B/o^m
del^ Oive^y the Jus Divwum Ali^isferij Eva^ge/ici, L^ arroq^f^^Jame-
Jo», Sciiltet^ Ri'uet: For why fliould I repeat what has been lo
often inMed on ? After all that Himmond^ Ptarjm^ Be^ueridge^
Wake- ov Dufm have advanced in Vindication of thefe Epiffles, I
am as well iatisfyed as 1 can be of any Thing, that they are either
Counterfit or Corrupted. 2dly, 'Tis true fuch Interpolations as
favoured the then or after Herefjes are pretty well weeded out of
the A^^jv Editions: But 1 have already fliewn what Grofs Hete-i
lies were in the Old ones. Now I ask Mr. Rhind, how they cou'd
creep in when the Genuine Epiltles were fcattered through Rome
Antioch and feveral Cities of Greece^ The Depofirariesthemfelves
of this facred Tteafure cou'd have confronted thefe interpolated;
Pieces with the Genuine Epiftles. They iheoifelves .couM not be
the Cdniiinals : , And Perions removed at fueh a Diltance could
[y] ParKnef: Seft, 2j. p. p8. Nempe in AuJctrtf*? HJcrsMCOs- locum- protnlefat Jgnntiui €X «-
Ya^ngelio S. M.ttthni, quo negavifFe dicebaniir Chiilhis (e Doeniomum efie incorporeum. Non iari^ caucB
jJillinxic S. Martyr inter S. M>itth*i Evangelium fmceium, tt quale uiurpabani: Ebiontti ]\im in lAjia ^TiC-
iances inicrpolariyn. Hie ergo uegauc HiCiecici, e: quidem reite, Yorba. jUa xa Evaiifeeiiu tuille quale. pi®«>
eiijt a S. MattbKQ, ..
Sed. V^ Presbyterian Government. 14!
not haveUniverfally confpired towards fuch a Deceit: Or If Peo-
ple had been inclined, . they wou'd rather have nnade Bold with
the Bible than any inferiour Authority. This is certainly good
Realoning becaufe it is Mr. K/^/»^'s p.99. And yet how impof-
fible foever it was that fuch Interpolations yZ>^»/^ creep in ; All the
World knows and confefTcs that they did creep in. ^dly, Why
does Mr. Rhmd fay that it is a l^t^ginp of the QueUion to alledge
that the Expiedions about Epifcopacj are Interpolations? 'Tis fo
far from a htggwg, that it is a ftoving of the Point direQIy. For,
when the pretended Ignatius extravagantly afcribes that to his Bi-
ftiops (whether they be fuppofed Pciroohtd or Dtocefm it alters not
^he Cafe ^ which the Apoftles never affumed to themfelves, 'tis
a plain Evidence that the Authoc of fuch ExpreiTions was a Mars
of no Judgn:ient or Confcience, confequently was not the Holy Mar-
tyr lonatws,. Is not this the very Reafon why the Church of
£.>^/<«/s2^ Divines themfelves have reje8ed the old Editions of thefe
Epilfles, becaule they are fo very immoderate in their Exaltation
of the Bifhop? For Inrtance,-when in the Epiftle to the Tralliatjs
in the old Editions the Bishop is fa id to be dovi all Frwciplity
anA Power yd/id wore excellent than all as far as it is poffible for AJa»
to^ excel/. And when in the Epiftle to the Philadelphians^ all of
what fort loever,.not only Presbyters,, Deacons and the whole
Clergy, but all the People, Souldiers, Princes, C^sfar Himfelf are
en)omed to perform Obedience to. the Bifl^iop. And when in
tlie Epirtle to the- Smyn^ans the Bifliop is placed betwixt
God and the. King, and that by way of Corredion of the> Words'
of Scripture. Afy ^on fear God (the Bifhop) and the Kjng, Does
not Dr. .Hiwwc'W himfelf (x) call thefe immoderate Expreflions ? "
Does he not pronounce the Dodrine contain'd in them to be re-
hellious^ extravagant and fenfelejs'^ Does he not conclude that they
were inlert by fome hn^oflor ? And is there not as good Re?fon
why we fhould except againft the A^e/v Editions, when there js in •
them a great deal of fuch extravagant Stutfyet unpurged out ? Can
aay one read even the VJher/amnd Volfim Editions, and not ob-
fcrve.fuclx a Turbid, aftcdedjHypprbolical.Scile- as wou'd never
probably:
[i] Auf. to cte Anamadvef. on tlic DilTen. Chap.. III. Se£l. j. ,
142 Defence of the Chapa 11.
probably have been ufed by one that h^A heard and converfed
witli the Apoltles, the CharaQei of whofe Writeings was Simpli-
city ? Is it polTible one of IgnAttus\ Spirit and Chara6er couid
have made that l^oaftT^) that he was 'able toknow things heiven-
* ly, the Orders of Angels, their ConlVitiJtions,Principahties, things
* Vifible.and Invifible? 'TistrueDr. Haiw?'AoW(^^)has criticifcd,
and Dr. Wake tranflated that Paflage to a contrary Senft ; as if He had
faid / am not able to knorv things Haav^nlj ; But both thefe
Doctors have done Defpite to the Context as well as forced the
Words; for the very Paragraph, in which the Paffage i5,btgins thus
even accoi<3ing to Dr. Wakt\ Traaflation in his fecond Edition.
^ Am I not able to Wfiie to you of Heavenly things ? But I fear left I
^ fhould harm you, who are yet but Babes in Chrilf: (^ Excufe me /^/>
* C^^^;) and left perchance being not able to receive them, ye fhould
* bechoaked with them. Couidfo wife and Holy a Man havediop-
ped fuch unguarded ACertions as thefe, i^'hat.foe'vnthe Btfiop approves
is acceprable toGod. My S^ul for fuch a^ obey the B/bop, t^resbjitrs affd
Deacons. Is not the very Foundation of Popery, i/z^.an Imphctte Faith^
wrapt up in thefe Expreftions ? 4ihly, Why did .V r. Rhind fay
that the Epiicopal Authority can be proven from other I^^lvnuments
of that Age f Wiiere ar^ thefe Monuments? Why did he not
produce them, or at leaft name them? Had Mr. Rhind confidcred
that things were not to be taken upon his meer Aftertion; I'm
fure he had found Caufe to make his Book at leaft a hundred Times
bigger than it is, or to leave out five hundred ihmgs he has put
into it. Fo/jcarp was the moft contemporary Writer with Ignatius
that can be named. But though he prefcribes Deacons and Pref,
^^^^i their Duty, yet he does not fo much as once name Bi(hop^
or any thing equivalent to them above the Degree of Presbyters ;
but plainly fuppofes that there were then no other Orders in the
Church but thole ofP^'/^'J/jand Deacons, Wherefore ye mufi r^edsabfiaiit
from all thefe things ; being Jubfci to the Pricfls and Deacons, as
unto God and Chrifi ( c J.
y I. Mr. Rhtnd a^ks further p. lop. * Why any fuch Interpola-
tion
£ a^^pp. :o the TialioSea, V.£b] Vind. ot the Diflert. Chap. III. Seft. 3.(_cJ Ep. CO the Philip. Scci.V. VIj
Se(3:. V. Presbyterian Government 145 ,
**tlon fhouM have been attempted. For if the Teftimonies in
« thefe EpifHes that favour the Epifcopal Authority are not agree-
* able to the Faith and Pradiceof the Ignatian Age; then many
^ Hving about the Time of the Interpolation might have been
* fenfible ot this. And as it was next to ImpofTible to deceive fuf f>
' by fpurious Epiftles fo it is highly improbable that they would'
* fuflfer others to be deceived. To this Furpofe He. Bat this is-
the very fame Thing he has faid to often over, and which I have
fo largely expofed. 'Tis beyond Contradidion, and is cenfelTed
on all Hands that there were Interpolations made, and that too in
the Matter of Epifcopacy, whereof I jaft now gave Inftances*
This l^eing clear, where is the Neceflity of giving either the How
or the W%. of fuch Interpolations? Let Mr. Rhmd or any of his
Brethren give us the How or the W/y^thefe extravagant ExprelTions
in the Matter of Epifcopacy which I have juit now inflanced,
and which are confeiled to be Interpolations, were foifttd into the
Ignatian Epifiles; and I here promife to give Him the How or
Wh) of air the relt which he thinks do mike for his Purpofe. So
much then for Mr. Rhind*^ Vindication of the /^»^//^« Epiftles.
Toconclude it, He referrshis Readers«i p. 107. \^ any 0} them are'
n&t yet fully Satisfad to th Incomparable Dr. Pearfon'i 4^y^ the learned
Dupin'j i^irformafices on that Had. And I referr my Reader to
the Authors whom I have already cited. ' Tis true the p,reateft
Men of the Church of England have made their utmoil Efforts in
behalf of thefs Ignatian Epiftles: But 'tis as true they have been
taken up by as great Men as themfclves, Tis true likewife the
Church of E^igland Divines got the lafl: Word; But it is as true,
it was, not bccaufe they won ir, but becaufe they begg^'^a, it, and
owed iheir keeping the Field not to the Strength of their Reajons
but to the earnel^nefs of their Importunity, as appears from Mon-
fieur V Arroquth Life prefixed to His Adverfana Sacra,, from IVal-
ket''i '1 ranflatson of U /irroo[ut\ Hiflory of the Ltdch.tnjl^ and from
the Autlior of the Elogium on Monfieur V Arroque in the Nouvelias
de Rtpubliq^iie de Lettres, They have been told of this belore(^),
but
£d j JatHieron's Nai. QucicL ■ Boyfe, Foxreftsr^
144 Defence of the Chap. It.
but it was need full to tell them over again, becaufe they fometimes
affect to be dull of Hearing. But enough of Ignntius,
The next Teftimony He produces is from Clemem Bifhop of
Rome^ in his firft Epiftle to the
CLEMENS RO MANVS CorMmns Sea. 40. in which the
Argumentative Words are. * For
* the Chief Pried has His proper Service^ and to the Prieils
' their proper Plr^ce is appointed ; and to the Levites ap-
* pertain their proper Miniftries; and the Lay-Man is confined
* within the Bounds of what is coram inded to Lay- Men. From
which He inferrs p. 109. * th^t to the Bifhop, Presbyters and Dea-
* cons in the Chriftian Church fuch a Diftin8ion of OSces does
* belong, as formerly obtained among the High Priefts, and Levites
* under the Jewifh Difpenfation ; which is further confirmed by
* the Authority o^ St, lerom (that pretended Patron ot Parity J
* who faies, what Aaron and his Sons rvere^ that we know the Bifhops and
* Presh^ters are. Thus Mr. Rhind, Now let us examine all this.
In the firft Place. Was Clemens Bifhop of Rome when he wrote
tliis Epift'e? Hear Dr. Wake (e") * I conclude then, faith He^
* that this Epiftle was written fhortly after the End of the Perfecu-
* lion untler Nero ; Between the LXIV and LXX Year of Chrift:
* And that, as the Learned Defender of this Period fuppofes, in the
* Vacancy of the See of Rome-, before the Promotion of S. ClemeAt
* to the Government of it. Thus He. Plainly, this Epiftle was writ-
ten at leaft forty two Years before Epifcopacy wasinftiture, by Mr.
DodweWs Accompt; and before there was any fuch thing as a Bi-
fliop in the World except James Bifhop of Jerufa/em who was in
Pliceof UniverfalPope. This, I hope, is more than SufHcient to take
offC/ement^s Teftimony : For how could he fpeak of a Thing which
was not yet in Being. Yet left Mr. Rhind fhould complain of
Neglea
In the Second Place. I ask, does that PafTage, which he has
Cited from Clemens, in the leaft tend to prove that there were then
three Did'in^ Orders of Biftiops, Presbyters and Deacons in the
Chriftian Church? No. He ules it only by way of General Ac-
commodation,
/|c 1 Ubi Supia I Edu. p. j-f.
ScSt. V« Presbyterian Government. i^j
commodation, that the Chriftians at Corimh fhouM be SubjeQ to
their tipiritoal Guides ; as the jTw^, whofe Polity was yet landing,
were to theirs. But ir never entered into his Thoughts to run a
Parallel 'twixt the Officers in the one and the other Polity. And
Mr.' /^/;/W might as well have proved that the Officers in the Chri-
ftian Church correfponded tothofe in the Roman Army, becaufethe
fame CUmcnt faies SeB. 37. ' Let us confider the Souldicrs who
* obey iheir Leaders in War, how orderly, readily and with all
*- Subjediion they execute their Orders. All are not Pretors or Chi-
' liarchs, nor Centurions nor Commanders of Fifty. Every one
- performs, in his Order and Station, what is commanded by the
^ King and the Leaders. Plainly, one needs no more to convince
Him that Epifcopacy did not obtain :n that Time, but to re?.d
Clement'^ Epiftle. The Occafion and Subjed of it is this. The
Feople of Corinth had raifcd a Sedition againlt their Presbyters, and
V/ould not be regulated by them. Clemens wrote his Epiltle on
Purpofe tocompelce that Sedition. ' They are fliamefull yea very
* fliamefull things beloved, faith he Se5l, 47, to be heard, that the
* moft firm and Ancient Church of the Corinthians fliould by (^orfor
* the Sake of) one or two Perfons rife up in Sedition againfl the Pref-
. byters. Does he ever recommend it to them to referr their Quarrel
to the BiOiop? Not once. What could be the reafon of this?
had he been abfenr, Clement might have entreated them to wait his
Return. Had he been Dead, he might have defired them to keep
Quiet till there were a new one Cholen. Yet Clemens ad vifes to nei-
ther of thefv% no not by a Hint. Does he acknov/ledge any moe
than two Orders of Officers in the Church B^JJjops and Deacofps'^
No. * The Apoftles, faith HeSe!^, 42^ preaching through Countries
' and Cities conrtituted their firft Fruits, having proved them by
* the Spirit, tor B/hops and Deacons of thofe that fhould alterwards
believe. No mention of Presbjters here. Did he not pofitively own
that thefe Bftjops were no other than Pnsi^jttrs? Yes. * For it
' would be our no fmall Sin, faith He Setl. 44, fhould we cafl cff
* thofe from their B.'/Jjopruk who without Blcme and Holily ofter
* the Gifis. Blilled are thofe Presbjters who having fiaifhed tlieir
^ Couiie have obtain'd a fruittull and perfect DilToluiion. To con-
iirm ail. Groiiusia his Hpiftle to Bignorms piovcb this Epidle of
T ,Llir/;en(
1^6' Defence of the Chap. IL
Clement to be of undoubted Antiquity. ' Becaufe, /^/V/j he (/), no
* where therein does he make Mention of that Far amount or P^-
*^c////4r Authority of B//j'o/?^, which, by Ecclefiaftical Ciiftom, be-
'^gan after the Death of M^'i to be introduced at Ale^and.Yia'^ and'
*-fromthat Precedent into other places; but He plainly fliews, as
'the Apoftle P.t/y/ had -done, that the Churches were governed by
*'the Common Council of the Freshyters^ who are all called Bifljop
* both by Him and Paui.ThnsGrotius. ^mGrofhis was a Dutch^Man,
True. But his Rcafoning was right EvgUjI^, ' Thty ^faith the Learned
' • Stillingfleet fg) that can find any one fingle Bifhop at Corinth when
^■Clement wrote his EpiPcle to them, mud have better Eyes and
* Judgment than the defervedly admired Grotius,
In the Third Place. . I ask how "JeronPs Words, What Aaron
md. his Sons were that we know the Bi/Jjops and Presbyters are^ contri-
bute to the clearing or confirming C7m^f;;f's Teftimony. Why did
nor Mr. Rhind tell where Je^or/i hasthefe Words ? 'Twas too much
Nicenefs in him to think that citeing Authors in iuch a Cafe as
this would be reckoned P^^.^^?r; : The induftrious avoiding of it
rather dcferves that Name. But the Reafon is Evident, My, Rhind
knew very welljthatifany one would look the Place, He would fee .
howabfurdly it were alledged. Plainly the words aretaken out of-
JV/'o^vA famous Epiftle to Evagrius, the Occafion and Contents of
which are thefe. A certain Deacon of the Church o^ Rome had ftart-
ed a pretty odd Opinion viz. that Deacons werejuferiour to Presbyters, .
Fcrchiftifing the Arrogance of thn Sp^rk, jf^/o.v^ wrote the faid ■
Epifile._. * A Fool, faith he (^h) will fpeak foolidi Things^ I hear
* ihere is one who has broke out into fuch a Height of Folly as to
* 'preferr Deacons to Presbyters; that is, to Biiliopso . Then He
proceeds to confute Him by Arguments. And the great Argument
upon which he goes is this, .Bifliops and Presbyters were in the A-
poftks s
[i ] Quod nuAjuam meminic exforcis allius Epifcoporum auaoricacis, qua: Ecclefia: Confuetudice.poflMj/'.*
<■/■ .rnorcem, Alexandrix, atqiie co exempio, alibi iiurodiici cepic; ied plane uc Paulus Apoftolus oltendit,
Ecclea.;: Comnniml'resbyteronim, qiu iidcm.omnes e: .Epifcopi ipfi I'auloqiK? dicuncur, conliko fuiflb
i;i;>ernaras, [g] Ircnic p. ,i8c. . . i - . i
C '» 3 Leginiusni ECaia . Fatuus fatua loquetur.. Audio quendam in tancamErupiffe vecordiam . Uc D''-
aconos Presby^eris, idcft, Epilcopis aiueforrec' Nam cum Apoftolus perfpicue doceaceoldem effe Presby»
wrosquos Ep;fcopo3, quid patitur Menfarum & Viduaium Miiiifter, ucfiipra eos fe cumidus efferat. -^
(^jod auccni pofiea. i.inus elefius elt, qui ccsteiis pi£EpO'.!Cicrur,in fchifmatis jemediura taftum ell.- — Nam ■
et Akxaiidnx a Marco Evangelifta ulque ad Heraclim fc Dionyfium Epifcopos, rresbyreii femper ununi
ex. fe Eleaum m Excelfjori. gradu collocarum Epifcopuiii comma bant.— r- Quid euiia iacit, excepts t)-» -
«iiDatio:)e,Ep!fcopus, quod PiesbytcrjioniaQiai....* * "" '-
Sed. V, Presbyterian Government' 147
poftles Time all one. But it were a palpable Folly to preferr Dea-
cons to Bifhops. Ergo it is the fame Folly to preferr Deacons to
Presbyters. The fii ft of thefe Propofitions viz. that Bifliops and
Presbyters were in the Apoftles Time all one, He proves from the
very fame Scriptures which the Presbyterians have ever infifted on.
And tho' Epifcopacy was fo far advanced in his Time, which had
been fet on Foot after the ApodlesDays for a Remedy of Schifm ; yet
even then he declares, Thxt except hg Ordination the Bi/Jjop does ;;<?-
thifjg which the Presbyter mighi not do. Is it then Imaginable that af-
ter all this, Jerow in that very fame EpiftleQiould allow Bifliopsto
be Superiour to Presbyters by Divine Right, as the High Prieft un-
derthe Law was to the ordinary Friefts? No. 'Tisplain that the
Comparifon runs, not between Aaro?7 and his Sons under the Law,
and Bifhops and Presbyters under the Gofpel; but between Aaron
and his Sons as one Part of the Comparifon under the Law, and the
Levites under them as the other. So under the Gofpel Bifliops and
Presbyters make one Part of the Comparifon, anfwering to Jaro^
and His Sons in that wherin they all agree 'viz, the Order of
Priefthood, and the other Fart under the Gofpel is that of Deacons
anfwering to the Levites under the Law. And thisGlofs upon Jtroms
Words, as the Context necelTarly requires, fo the learned 6V////>^-
feet (i) has CKprefsly confirm*ed. And befides. Dr. Hammond, as
we have before obferved, by denying the middle O^^Qxo'i Presbyters
in the Apoftles Days, has quite deftroyed the Argument from the, 7eiy-
ijh Priefthood. Was not then Mr. Rhindwcvy well advifed, when
he would prefs Jerom into his Service in the very Face of his own
Proteftation to the Contrary ; and that too for confirming Clement'^s
Teftimony who never dropt fo much as one Syllable in favours of
a Bifhop above a Presbyter. So much for C/^w^^/, and I don't think
but the Reader is by this Time convinced, that Mr. R/?/>^ could
have been at no lofs though he had never mentioned Him.
His Third Teftimony is from a Letter of the Emperour Adrian
to Servia/jusj but, fuppofing it were for his pur-
pofe, 'tis fo very fliamefull a one, that for the Ho- The Emperor/r
nour bf the Epifcopal Order it ought to have been ADRIAN
buried in Silence. But Dv. Monro (k) hadtocch'd
T 2 upoa
[^i] Ircuic. p. atfg. [J^] EiKjuiry inco che new Opinions.
148 Defence of the Chap, \li
upon.it, and therefore Mr. K/;/;?^ thought it neceflary hefhoulddo
fo too. The Words of the Letter infifted on by Mr. Rhmd p,
109 are. There are Chrifliarfs who Wor (hip S^xz^is^ and they are devofm
ed to Sera pis ivho call the?rifelves the Bifliops of Chrift, There mo Ruler
of the Synagogue y no Cbriftian Presbyter, ly/;^ ^(?f^ mt,%cc» From
this he inferrs, ' That when ^^m;^ was in JElgyft JnKoChriJi.i^i.
* the Di-flinclion of Bifliops and Presbyters vv^s fo notorious, that
* the Emperour fuppofeth it as an undoubted Truth, But the
very contrary is evident from the Emperour's Words. And 'tis
clear as Light that thefe whom he calls Bijhops in the fixftCIaufe
are the fame with thofe he calls P^^i^^r^ri in the next: Away of
Speaking which every Body knows to be according to the conftant.
Stile of the Scripture, and confequently of all fuch as knew any.
Thing of the Chriftiaa Affairs, I have fer down f the Emperour's-
VVords as He wrote them, that the Reader may lee. this the more,
evidently.
His Fourth Teftimony p. no. is from Irefjaus Lib, ^o Cap. g^
comra Heres, who faies, M^e- cari- reckon them, tvho,
JR E'N jEVS were appointed Btfiops bj the Apojlles in the Churches^
md their Succejjors to our Day • To whom alfo they^
cor^mttfd thefe Churches j deliver tfjg to them the fame Dignity of Power.
'Tis anfwered. . -
Firfl:, Suppofing Jr^;;.?^/ wereagainfl: us, yet his Judgment about'
Traditions is ofno great Weight. For,in that fame Chapter which iMr.
Rhind has cited, HealTerts (/jnotonly the Preeminence of the Church
&f Rome, b'Jt the neceffary Dependence of all other Churches upon
Her. -And elfewhere (?w j he ai'ieits Chrift to have been paft the
fortieth and near the Fiftieth Year of his Age, when he fufoed^ And
that the Elders who were vjiiUfoha in Ajia teftifyed, that they had
that by Tradition from j^?/^>i; himfelf, yea thatihe GofpeL it fdf
Teaches
I Adrianu3.Ai;g. Seiviaso Cos. S. ^gyptum quern mihi laudabas, Servistne Chauiffime, totam didijfy
lerem, penditlaroi & jid omnia fama: monieiita volitancem. Illi jui Serapin cofunr ^hnitiani Aiiir, & de-i-
voa iuuc Serapi. Qiii fc Chrifti Epifcopos diciiiu. Nemo illic Archifynago^us Judisoxum nemo Samanc;sy
ntino Chriflianornni'iEresbycer, non.Mathemadcus&c.
[ 1 "J Ad, hanc- enim. Ecclffiam., propcer. Poteni;ioa-em Principalitaterti, n-iceire eit Oinnem convfnire Ec*.
clefiam. ' ' '
[an], Lib. i. Cap. 30, 4«,. A quadragefimo au: quiiiquagefiaio Anno decjjnat jam :i) j^cacem lenioremj
nuauihabenj Dominus nofter docebaf, ficiit Evangeiium & omiies Seiuoits tciUntur, qm m Afia apud Jo-
aniiem Difcipulum Domini convenerunr, idip(um cradifTe eis Joaiiiiem— Quin^uageUmni^i nutem animia
aoiidum ittigic, iiou caaieaaiulcuaia ^uuK|uagtfinio Auuo abliu:u...
Sed^ V; Presdyteriati Government. 149
Teaches ir, and he is very angry with thofe who think otherwife.
When he liumblcd fo prodigioufly info plain a Cafe; Pray what
Credit is to be given to his Traditions about the Succeflion of Bi-
fhops, which is generally acknowledged by the Epifcopalians ihem-
felves to be a moll perplexed and uncertain Piece of Hiftcry.
Secondly, Dots Iren^us fay, as Mr. Rhind has Tranfldtcd him,
that the Apoftles delivered to the Bifliops the fame Dignity of Power ?
No, his Words^^/?) Whom alio ( viz, the Bifhops ) they Uft their
Succejfors^ deliv^rwg to them th^ir own Place of Majlerfjjip. That is,
the Apoftles conftitute them the Supream OiBcers in the Church,
fo that they were to have none above them any mors than the A-
poftles had. But, that they delivered either to Bifliop or Presbyter
the fame Dignity of Power, henaus never faid. But
Thirdly, There is no need either of Declining Iretj^m'^s Tefti-
mony, or refining upon his Words. Mr. Rhind tells he cou'd /w-
pove upon his Teftimony : And I cannot but wifli he had made all
the Improvement of it he could. For that the Apoftles appointed Bi^
fiops in the Churches, every Presbyterian o\vt\s. But that he appoint-
ed PreUts or Diocefan Bifliops, no Epfcopalian has yet proved. If
they will ttill go on to expofs themfelves by infifting upon the Word
Biflsoo no Body can help ir. Pcesbyteifians mufl: take Care they be
not impofed upon by meer Sounds. 'Tis certain that Iren^tm took
"Bilhop and Presbyter fof one and the fame Oiiicer. ' Wherefore, /^///i
' hs ro;,..it behoves us to hearken to thofe who are Preshjters in the
* Churchy 10 thoie who, as we have iliewn, have their Sacsfjfion from
* thejpojtles ; v^ho,together with the Succeiuon of the Epifcopate.h^vo
* alfo received the certain Gift of the Truth according to the Pieafure
* of .the -Father. Thus Irenaips, And what [I range CoioJupOf^ faies Stil-
ling&et ( p ), iTiiifi this raife in any omPs Mind that fetks for a Succfffwa
of Epifcopal Power over Pres6jters from the ApoHles by the Tefiimony
of Irefissus, when he fo plainly attributes boih the Succefjion to Presbyters^
<«;f<i /^^ Epifcopacy too which he f peaks of. So much for IrenAM^s.
His
[n] Quos ec fucceflbres rclinquebant, fuum ipforum' lorumMagifterij tradcnte?.
[o] Qiiaproprev eis qui in Ecclefia Ainc Prcsbyceiis obauJiie''oportet. Hi; qui fuccemoaem h2»
bene ab Apollolis, ficuc ottendimus, qui cum Epiftopitus Sucseirioae, Chariuaa veriuaa ceKu.ii, lecuudusn
placKum I'iuris accepeiunc.
£ P3 Iienic. p. 30^,.
tjo Defence of the Chap. IL
His Laft Teftlmony, p. no, is ^vomTerttdUn^ tpho^ faith He, ^?-
ga^ to flourifl) At the fame Time .n?/V// Iren^us,
TERTVLLIAA^, that is, in the Declerjfion of the Second Cefj.
tury, A'/jd fates Lib. de Baptifmo, ' The High
* Priefl", who is the Bifnop, has the Right of giving Baptifm, after
* him the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Billiop's Au-
thority. For Anfwer.
In the Firft Place. I fhould be Glad to know where Mr. Rhi^d
came by this Piece of Chronology, 'Tis true Tertullian began to
flourifii in the Declenfion of the Second Century, 'viz.
after the Year 192: And wrote his Book de Baptifmo^ from which
Mr. Rhind cites about the Year 201 {qf But Iren^m^ Flourifliing
was well nigh blown off e're that Time: For he died, faies Mr.
Dodwell (r; before the Perfecution under Severus which began in
the Year 202 or 205. 'Tis then fomething Hard to conceive, how
Tertullian began to fiotdrtfjj at the fame Time with Iren^us. But
paffing this
In the Second VhcQ, I ask What v/ould Mr. Rhind inferr from
TertulUanh Teftimony? Is it that there were three diltind Orders
of Ecclefiaftical Officers, Bifliops, Presbyters and Deacons in the
Beginning of the //;/>^ Century? Every Piesbyterianownsir. Isit
that the Bifliops had this Paramount Power of Baptizing, beyond
the Presbyters and Deacons, by -Di'vine Right? Tertullian Himfelf
denys it, and that in the very next Words to thofe cited by Mr.
Rhind, ' It remains, faith He Cf), for concluding this little Mat-
* ter, to advifealfo concerning the Obfervation of giving and re-
* ceiving Baptifm. Of Giving indeed the High Frieft who is the
* Bifliop has the Right, then the Presbyters and Deacons; yet not
•' without the Authority of the Bifhop FOR THE HONOUR
* OF THE CHURCH, which being Safe, Peace is Safe. Other-
•* wife EVEN LAY-MEN HAVE IHE RIGHT: Forwhatis
'I' equally received, may be equally given. Thus Tertullian. Say
now
[ (J ] Spr.iheim Hifl. Ecdef p, 719. [r] Diflerr. 3. in lien.
[ i J Sapcrcft, ad conchi4endain materiolam, de obfervacione quoque Dandi & accipiendi bapci-
^fnum commor.etacere. Dandi qiiidem habec jus fummus Sacetdos, qui 6c Epifcopiis : Dehinc Presby-
ticri & Diaconi, iioii rameii fine Epiicopi au£i:oncare, propter Ecclefis lioiioiem, quo falvo, falva pax ell.
_^AJio(jii]n etwiii Laicis jus eft. Qiiod enjm.ex xquo accipitui;, e:; a;quo dan poteli.
Sed. F. Presbyterian Government. 1 5 1
now, Good Reader, if Mr. Rhi,^d was not either very /7/furnifhed
of Teftimonies, or very we/l with AiTarance, when he infifted on
this.
And thus now I have gone through His Jntiquity^ and hope 'tis
plain that when he was a entring on it, he might have fpared his
Harangue wherein he would perfwade the Presbyterians to appeal
•to the Fathefs; For I can hardly believe he has gained much by
referring to thefe Judges. And if his own Confcicnce was fatisfi-
ed with thefe Teftimonies he has produced, I niuft needs fay it is
no IIl-Natured one.
ARTICLE YI
Wherein Mr. Rhind'i' Argument for Vrchcy
from the hnfojfibiltty of its obtaining fo Early
and Vniverjally. if it had not been of Divine
InftitutioHy is Examined, From P^ iii. t^
P.H9.
THERE can be nothing more Ridiculous than to difnutea-
gain(l the PoiTibility of a Matter of Faa. If I had fcen
Mr. Rhtfjd fomeTime ^t Edmh/rgh - and, within a Short while af-
ter, had heard from unexceptionable WitneiTcs that he was at a
Hunder Miles Didance from it,mull I believe notwithlhndingihat
he never changed Places; bccaufe I am not able to tell /-/^/v or
W/jef^ he didir, nor perhaps anfwer all the ObJLclions one might
puzzle me wiihagainit either the Phyficalor Moral ImpofTibility
of his having done fo. Btcauie Mr. Rhi-ul was educated Presby-
terian^sWas a Zealot in that V/ay, and i)rofitcd (more Ways
than
-152 Defence of the Chap! 11.
than one J above many of his Equals'; mud I therefore deny that
he is now Epifcopalian, and of the new Cut too; becaufe neither I,
nor indeed any Body elfe, can account for his Change. Has he
not heard Mr. Dodwell {o often affirming, that the Government was
changed about the YearCVI; changed too, not only without any
Account of it, but without any Warrant for'n contained in the Scri-
ptures? Why then will he difputeagainfithe PofTibility ofaChange?
But 'twas his Pleafure,asithas been of many of his Brethren Wri-
ters to do fo ; and we muft attend Him in His Performance.
That a Change, of the Government of the Church by a Parity
of Paftors, into a Government by Prelacy, had been morally Im-
pofTible, he argues I. From the Piety and Zeal of the Primitive
Times. 11. From the Univerfalfpread of Epifcopacy. III. From
the Vigilance of the Governours of the Church. IV. From the
Unparallel'dnefs of the Cafe. V. From the No-Oppofition made to
the Change, and the Want of any Infinuation that ever the Church
was governed according to the Presbyterian Model. Ofthefein
Order.
I. He argues p. iii. 112. from the Piety and Zeal of the Primi-
tive Times. ^ If the Presbyterian had been the Divine Form of
' Government, it could never once have entered into the Thoughts
* of Men wlio had fhared in or been SubjeQ to' this Government,
*'to attempt or allow its Change. Would thefe Primitive Perfons
' who Vt/ere Eifliops in the firli Ages, have iifurped an Antifcri-
^ ptural Authority.- What could have tempted them to it ? Not
* the Love of Riches, they forfook all for the Sake of Chrift.
' Not Ambition ; for they knew their Promotion rendered them
^ the more Obnoxious to the Fory of their Perfecutors. Suppof ng
■'^ they had been a£ted either by Worldlinefsor Ambition, yet v/ouid
^ the Piesbyters and Deacons Iiave fuffered fuch an Encroachment
^ to be made upon their Divine Right ? Or would the People have
•^ fabmitted to fuch an Ufurpation ? To this Purpofe he. For
Anfwer. It cannot be denyed, that the Zeal and Piety of the
Primitive Times was much greater than of ours: But why would
Ls impofe upon People by a Chmerkd Reprefenration of thefe'
Times, contrary to the Faith of all Hilbry? Men rtill were, and
always will <be Men-, .that is, very Corrupt, how Holy f )ever the
R-ligion
Sed V^ Trcshytcnm Govemmenf. 153
Religion is which they profefs. And Church^Men are Men too ;
and, even in the Primitive Times, gave many and very Scandalous
Examples, and u^ere the greateft Caufeof the Corruption ofChri-
jftians, and fometimes of their Perfecution too. What a tragical
Complaint does Eujtbim (r ) make of the Wicked nefs of C^r////^;;/
in general, and of C/^Arrt/^-A/^-;? in particular? * Bifhops, /^//^ Hf,
*■ rufhed {.like mUBeaUs^ againft Bifhops. Moft deteftable Hy-
' pocrifie and DilTimulation advanced even to the very Height of
' Wickednefs. We vi^ere not touched with any Senfe of the Divine
* judgment creeping in upon us, ufed no Endeavours to regain
* his Favour; but wickedly thinking that God neither did regard
* nor would vifit our Crimes, we heaped one Wickednefs upon
' another. And thofe who feemed to be our Fafiorsy rejeQing the
* Rule of Piety, were enflamed with mutual Contentions againft
* one another; and while they were only taken up with Con-
* tentions, Threatnings, Emulation, Mutual Hatred and Enmity,
* and every one eagerly purfued his Ambition in a Tyrannical
Manner, then the Lord covered the Daughter of Zjon with a Cloud
in His Anger^ And remembered not His Footfiool in the Day of His
Anger, but raifed up the D/Wp//4» Perfecution againft them. Thus
Eufebius and a great deal more to this Purpofe. Fifty Years be-
fore that, Cyprian (^v) complain'd of an Univerfal Depravation in
the Clergy as well as the Laity. ' That the Priefts had no De-
' vorion, the Minifters or Deacons no Fidelity, That there was no
* Charity in Works, no Difcipline in Manners. And does not
Jerom ^ tell us, that ' the Primitive Churches were tainted with
* many grofs Errors whilft the Apoftles were alive, and the Blood
* of Chrift yet warm in Judea ? But why do I infift on Human
Teftimony? Does not the Apoftle Paul himfelf make the like
Complaint. PhiL-^.iS. MANY mlk, of whom I told you often^ and
now tell you even weepings that they are the Enemies of the Crofs of
Chri(l ',whofe God is their Belly^who mind Earthly Things. And Chap. 2.2 1.
ALLfeeii their own^not the Things which are Jefus Chrijl^s. Even in thofe
U early
r c ] Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VIII. Cap. I. .
[ T ] Non in Saceidotibus Religio dcvota, non in Miniftris fides integr«, non lu opcnbui MiieiiCOf-
jJia, non in Moribus Difciplina 8cc. Cjpian Dc Lapfis.
* AdrerAis Luci^erian.
1^4 Defence of the Chap. 77;
early Times, and while the Church was under Perfecuiion, a Dio-
trephes could afpire to the Preemineme I'Johng. And even the Pe»»
flei Liberality made To confiderable aProvifion for the Maintenance-
of Church-Men, that the Apoftles found Caufe, oftner than once,
to Caution them againfl: Undertaking the Office for filth'j Lucre^^
Sake I Pet. 1^,2. i T/w. 3. 3. Where then was the Impoffibility
of a Change even upon the Principles of Ambition and Covetouf-
nefs? Might not one at Mr. /^/;/Wsrate of Reafoning prove, that
it was not pofTible there fhould have been any fuch Officers as
Sub'Deacons?. The Deacons (Good Menj would not be fo Am-
bitious as to feek to have Underlings. There could be none (o
mean Spirited as to iubmit to be fuch. Suppofe both thefe, the
People ( of whofe Charity the Deacons were the Trufttes) would
not have fufferedir. . Yet Cjpriaff-.f x) makes Mention of them as
undifputed Officers in his Time ; though 'tis certain there was no
DivinssJilftitution for- them, any more than for ' Jcoiyi hs ai]d Eie^
<3rf//r5 whom.healfo fpeaksof. Again^, 'tis certain all Bifhops were
Originally equal, how is it poffible then that e-ver there, could ariie
Jrch-Bjjljops or MetropoUtAm'^ Would any of the Bi [hops have
ufurped the Honour? W^ou'd their fellow Bifhops have fub-
mitred to the Encroachment? Would the People have fuffer-
ed it ? ^ Yet, how Impoffible foever ic was that they jhould be ; Mr.
il/?/W himielf I hope will not deny that they were-, y^a and that
they were brought in fo early and with fo little Noife that fome
Learned Men have thought they were from the Beginning. We
fee then hov/ Infuffi.cient Mr. Rh'md\ firft Argument is.
IL He argues p. 112. from the Univerfal Spread of Epifcopacy.'
Though fuch a Change might have happened in a Corner ; yer,
if Prelacy had not beeii of Divine Inflitution, how could it have
obtained Univerfally ? : Which yet it did: ; ' Vo\'y faith he f. 117,
' it v/as fully eixablifhed over, all the Earth, without any Oppofi-
' tion or Noife a Dozen of Years or fo after the feaiing of the Sa-
cred Canon. 'Tis anfwered. This is a very Infufficient Argu-
ment., •■ Epifcopacy fpread it felf through the whole Earth. Why .
fo did Arridmfm, \ The whole. World, Jms Jerom (jj, groaned ;
and ;
[ > 3 Ep. 24. . ly '} Ibid. Ubi Siiprs.
Scdi.V. Presbyterian Government] ^155
* and wondered to fee it felf turned Arrian, Befides, Vis falfe that
Prelacy prevailed Univerfally. Many Inftances mi^ht hz givea
to ths contrary; but not to wander from Home: Though Chri-
ftianlty was planted here in Scotlmd in the Days of the Apolilcs^
and got the Legal Eftablifhment in the Beginning of the third
Century; yet we had no fuch Thing as VreUcy till near the midie
cf the fifth that Paiiadtus brought it hither from Roffje; 2isBede^
.Fordun, Jofw Major, He^or Boathiu^^ Buchanaft and Craig with
Others do teQifie.
III. He argues from the Vigilance of the Governours of the
Church. * For, faith he />. 1 1 5. if Errours in DoQrine, which may
' more eafily pais without Notice, did not efcape their Obfervation
* and Cenfure ; how can it be fuppofed that they wouM not have
* obferved and condemned any Incroachments made upon the Con-
' ftitution of their Society ? But who fees not how falfe this way
of argueing is ? Whence came all the Ufurpations and Corrup-
tions both in Principle and Pradice which began to take Place from
the earlieil Ages of Chriftianity ? Does not every Body know, that
at leaft a great many of them crept in Infenfibly ; and that the Tares
were fown while Men Slept? ' No, faies Mr. Rhind /• 1 17. thefe
'* did not obtain till after fome Centuries. They were remonftrated
* againft by many. They were never allowed by one half of the
Church. This, I muft needs fay, is confident enough talking. I
ihall give one Inftance for Mr. Rhind to try his Skill on: It is
the giving of the Eucharift to Infants. It obtained ^/«r/y. Cjpriaft
X^) fpeaks of it, not as anew thing, but as an Ordinary Pradice.
It obtained amverjally: Augufiin fa) calls it Apoftolical Tradi-
tion. No Wonder; for it was pretended to be founded on that
Text of Scripture Joh.*i 6. 5^. Except ye eat the F/e[b Src, and he is
fo brisk on that Head, that he affirms ' that none who minds He
* is a Chritlian of the Catholick Church dcnys that Expofition or
* doubts of its Truth. It prevailed fo /o^g, that the Famous Be»igne
Bojfuet Bifhop of Meaux (6) brings it down to the Tmlfth Century ;
■ '- U 2 and
QTtr- — — ^ ^ ^
f z. ] Serni. de Lapfis. Sect. 20. [a] Vide Ep. io5. Lib. 1. coiura Jahaiuim. Lib. 1. Dc Peccaf
TOCric. & Rcmiifione contra Pelagiauiiin.
[bj Traue de la CommunioB lous Les Deux Efjpeces. p. 81. &c.
156 Defence of the Chap. \L
and affirms it to be ufed at this Day in the Greek Church. 'Tis
plain that the PraOice was unaccountable, and the Principle oa
which it was built falCe. But can Mr. Rhwd name the Perfon that
remonftrated againftthelntroduceing it ? Can he name any Church
that refufed it? Can he tell the Century in which it began ? No,
nothing of all this is poflTible. Where is now the Vigilance of the
Church Governours? If it could not fecure in one Thing, how
fball it do in another?
IV. He argues, p. 116, from the UnparallelMnefs of the Cafe,
^ That the like never happened in the Government of any other
' Society, whether of former or latter Times. For Inftance, the
' Ertablifhmentot the confular Dignity upon the Expulfion of their
* Kings by the Row^«/,andthe Change of the Republican into a
*^ Monarchical Form occafioned avaft Expcnceof Treafureand Blood.
' And in the Days of our K. Charles I the Monarchy was not deftroyed
' nor theCommon- Wealth eftabliflied till after, a confiderable Re-
* fiftance. From all which he inferrs, that fuch an injerjfibU Change
in the Government of the Church ought not to befuji^ofsd. This rea-
foning is built upon Grounds fo notorioufly-falfe, that it fcarce de-
ferves the Name of a poor Piece ofSophiftry. For it is contrary
to all Hiftory and Experience, which fhews us there hare been
great Changes, the Authors and the Beginnings and Oppofers of
which cannot now be known; Tho' no Man can doubt there hath
been an Alteration made. For the Body Spiritualand Civil too, is
Jike the Body Natural; in which as there arefome Difeafes which
make fuch a violent and fudden AfTauIt that one may fay, at what
Moment they began ; fo there arc other, which grow fo infenfibly
and by fuch flow Degrees, that none can tell when the Firfl Al-
teration was made, and by what Accident from a good habit of
Body to a Bad. 'Tis true, the inftanced Changes both in the /^i?-
man and Engliflj Government occafionM a vaft Expence.of Blood
and Treafure. But within the Memory of Man the Portugueze
in the Year 1 6 40 fhook off the Cafhlian Yoke and fet. up the Duke :
of BraganzafoF their King .• And yet, fo far as I can learn, there-
Was neither a Earthing Treafure fpentj-nor a Drop, ofBlood fpilt in
th§;
4
i
Sed. V. Presbyterian Government: 157
the Quarrel. Becaufe the Proteftants cannot ^ which B^//^yw/» (^;
challenges them to do; in all Cafes give an Account ofthe Author
of the Change, the Time when it began, the Place where, who
oppofed it and fo on ; muft we therefore believe that the Church
of Rome hath made no Change at alias to her Dofbrines and Pra-
ctices which Chrift and his Apoftles fettled? Who can give us the
Hiftory ofthe Qommtmion in one Kj-ndt It grew by Degrees to be a
general Cuftom; but no Body I fuppofe can tell where or when
it began? Who is able to trace the Beginnings of the lying Ora-
cles among the Pagans? But muft we therefore afcribe them to
God? According to Mr. R^/«<i's Way of Reafoning, the Traditi-
onarj)! Law of the Jews muft pafs for true, and that it came from^
Mount 5/;/^/ by Word of Mouth, as the W^r///^/? Law did: For none
can (hew its Original, muchlefs name the Authors ofthe feverall
Traditions,and who oppofed them,as Dr. Sjmon Patrick late Bifhop of
Ely has obferved (^j, and from whom I have taken theSubftance'
ot all this Anfwer, that the Epifcopal Party may fee how their Rea-
fOnings againft the Church of RomeqmtQ deftroy their Reafonings
^ainft the Frejhjterians, Nay are indeed the very Reverfe of
them. This might be Sufficient to take off his next Argument,,
yet ex Superabundantil Qiall confider it particularly. I fhould, ac-
cording to the Order of his Book, have inferted it before ; but for
a Reafon which will juft now appear, I have delayed it till the
Laft-.
V. He argues from the No-Oppofition made to the Change, and
the want of any Infmuation that ever the Church was governed
according to the Presbyterian Model. Thus. ' When Antichri-
* ftian Prelacy is fuppofed to be univerfally eftabliQied upon the
* Ruins of Jure Divino Presbytry; there is no confiderable Body
* of Diffenters, not one Presbytry, notafrngle Presbyter orDea-
* con, nor fo much as one Contemporary Chriftianteftifying againft
' the one,ordeclareingforthe other, or onceinfmuiting that ever the
*" Church was governed according to the Pr^j^jrm^» Model. Nor did-
J" anj iff ih&Jucceeciing Centuries pretend it did obtain, except Aerius
' and
[c] Lib 4.. Cap. J. De Nocis Ecclefis:.
[^d J.Oa Bcllarmiu's fceoud Noic of the Church.
158 T)e fence of the Chap. IL
*■ and St. Jerom in the Fourth. The one an Infamous Heretick ;
' witnefs £/'//>/^4;?///j Heres. 75. Sothat hisTeftinaony can beof no
* great Advantage to any Caufe,and "Jeromes as little Serviceable on
many Accounts. Thus he p. 115, 114. For Anfwer.
F/>//, Does not Mr. Rhhd know how infufRcient a Negative
Argument in this Cafe is? Does he not know how few Monu-
ments we have of thefe Times ? Or has he himfelf recovered them ?
Does he not know how ill furnifhed even E^z/^^i^^i himfelf was with
Documentswhen he wrote hisHiftory,&what brokenScrapes he went
on ? 'Tis no Wonder we cannot give a diftinO Account of the Rife
and firft Steps of Epifcopacy: For, from the Death of the Apoftles
Teter and Paul in the End of Nero's Reign about the Year 6Z
for the fpace of 28 Years, that is, till the Year 96; we
have cither no Hiftory to give us Light ; or what is worfe than
none, a parcel of fabulous Legendary Stories. The learned Jefuit
P^/^iz/'/yj ( ^ j fpeaking of that Period delivers himfelf thus. * The
* Chriftian Affairs of this Period ftand in a faint Light rather through
* Scarcity of Writers than Matter. For it is not Credible, but that
* the ApoftlesandDifciples ofChrifl: in all the World aded Things
* both great & worthy to be known. But they are generally blended
* with Fables and uncertain Narrations. And 'tis very obfervable,
and I defire the Reader to remark it ; that, at the very Time where-
in by Mr. DodwelPs Account Epifcopacy was fet up, that is about
the Year CVI or fomewhat fooner, the Chriftians are reprefented
as faint and languifliing in their Frofeflion and enclinedto. Apofta-
tize* The Author of the younger P//>;/s Life prefixed to his Epiftles
(f) cbferves p. 55. that he wrote his Letter to Trajiin concerning
the Chriftians betwixt the Moneth of September CITI and Spring
Time in the Year CV. Now in that Letter he gives a moft lamen-
table Account of the Chriftians. For, though, as he there re-
lates, Chriftianity had fpread it felf through Cities, Villages and
Country, yet he was of the Mind that a Sop might be put to it.
And as Evidence of this he tells the Emperour that the Temples
of
l^c] Chnftianx res illius Temporis hand magna in Luce verfaiittir, Scnptorum ma^is Ihopia, qtiam quit
niandari quod poflec Liccns excaret nihil. Namnequc parva, neque fcicu indigna ciedibiieell Apoflolos,
zc. Chrilti DikipaJos toco Orbo oefHITe. Sed pleraque iabiilis & iiKsrcis Nairatioiubus ufperfa funt. Peuv;
lUnon. Temp. par. lo, Tom. poll. Lib. j. Cap. ;-. . -
( i) Ed::. Oxon. 1703.
Scd:. V. Presbyterian Government^ 159
of the Heathen Gods which were formei'Iy almoft defohte now hc-
gan to be freqaenced, and that Sacrifices, hitherto neglected, wcfg
coming from all Hands; and that the Return of the Chriftians to
Pagamfm might be yet greater, if they were pardoned for what
was paft/^).- 2dly^ Is there any improbability in conceiving,thac
Teftimonies given againft a Government which afterward obtain'd
univerfally might be negleded and loft, perhaps indnilrionfly (moth-
ered and deftroyed. 'tis certain that there were PaiTages foifted
into Books, in Favours of Epifcopacy, as we have already proved
in the Cafe of the Igmtia-a Epiftles, and as is conie(Ted, as to the
oU Editions of them, even by the Epifcopalians themfclves. And
thefethat could find in their Heart to foift in PalTages/orthemfelves, :
would make no Bones of razzing out iuch as might h^agAinsi them. •
-^dly. What though we had not the Contemporaries who teftified
againft the Change, or at leaft infmuate that ?arity of Paftors did
at firft obtain; may not thofe that lived Ihortly after do as well,
efpeciaily when it was againft their Intereft to give any fuch Te-
ftimony ? But indeed we need not run to this. The Fathers of all '
Ages ( .fofar as their Teftimony is worth the Regarding ) have
giv^n as ample Teftimony in favours of Presbytry as Heart could'
wifh; whereofit will not be amifs to give fome Inftances. • ;
Tejlimonies for Presbytry from Antiquity--
TH E Epiftle of Clemefjs to the Corinthims is the Earlieft, anS '-
perhaps the pureft Piece of Antiquity ex-
tant. We have already heard Groiius obferving, CLE MENS
and SiiEtrjgflt^et juftifying him in his Obferve, ROMJNVS.'
that it is written on the Preshyterian%ch^xnQ, And Ann. Chr. 66,
1 -need not add to what I have already .advanced^,
to
[^^] Ne<|ue enim Civitates raiKum, f«d Vicos etiam arque Agros Superftitionis illius contagio jservagata
eft,qLij; videttir sifli et Corrigi poffe. Cene fatis Conllac, prope jam defolata lemphi cKpiire cehbijiri, &
facra Soleniiia-diiriiitermiir.i repcci: pasfiiriquQ venire vi£limai;,quarmn adhuc rarnlimus emptor invcnisba-
£ur. Ex quo facile ell opiuan, quip curba iloiniiiuw omciidan posfic, & lit Teuiceut** -Locus. Tiwi^ Lib,
7q.Ep. 517., .
i6o Defence of the Chap. IL
CO fhewthat Father to be on our Side. Only 'tis no unpleafant Di-
verfion to behold the Epifcopa I Scuffle about him. By Mr. DodwelPs
Calculation there was no Bifhop ( in the Epifcopal Senfejin the
World at the Time of the Writing of thatEpiftle, hvQjams fit-
ting Pope at Jeru/alem : All were Presbyters. No wonder then
that Clemem was filent of Bijhop above Presbpers, No, faith Dr.
Hammond (^h)y Clememh Presbyters were all BiChops, there was
«o midle Order of Presbyters at that Time. Nay, faith Dr. Burpjet
( i ) now Bifliop of S^.yum^ you are both wrong, Clemtm makes
Mention both of BiQiops and Presbyters. But pray where ? For
in all that Epiftle there are but two Orders of Ecclefiafticksfpoken of
^uiz,. Bifhops and Deacons: That's nothing, Clemens^ iaith he, by
DeMom mQ2imVresbyters, I'm fure, however Decent it may be,
yet 'tis pretty Difficult for one to be Witnefs to this Skirmifh and
keep His Gravity.
Jgmtiu^^ who wrote his Epiftles, as Dr. Wake teftifies ( k ),
Atj, I id is the firft who diftinguifhes betwixt B/-
IG N ATI V S /hop and Presbyter, And he, as I have (hewn quite
Ann.Chr. ii6.. deftroys the Modern Epifcopacy. And, that the
Igmtian Presbyters were employed either m
Preaching, Baptizing or giving the Eucharift I have fhewn to be
meer Suppofition which there is not one Title in the Epiftles them-
felves to fupport. Dr. Hammond ( I) mocks Salmafius mightily for
faying, * that the JgftatUn Epiftles were written when Epifcopacy,
* properly fo called came into the Church, becaufe in all his Epiftles
* he fpeaks highly in Honour of Frw^j/ry as well as of Epifcopacy fii^t
' fothe People, that had been accuftomed to the Presbyterian Govern-
* ment, might the more willingly and eafily receive this NEW
* Government by Epifcopacy^ and not be offended at the NOVEL-
* TY of it. And yet I have already produced Mr Dodwtll isiyiag
the very fame thing on the Matter.
Polycarp who wrote his Epiftle to the Philipphns immediatly
after
[ h ] Vind. of the Diflert. Chap, III. Seft. I. [i] HiR. of the Rights of Princes p. 6. [ k ] UIj«
^upra H. Edit. p. ;t. [ 1 J Ubi Supra Chay. III. Se^. -f.
Sed. F. Vrcshytcvlm Government i/:i
after Ignattw, as T>v.\Vake (w) would have us
believe ; though he had the faired Occafion for it, POLYC J RP
yet, as I obferved before, makes not the lead Ann.Chr. 117.
Menrioa of two Orders of Vajfors^ but of Priefts
and Deacons onlv. And Dr. Hammond («) Himfelfcan find no
other Way to fiiift the Force of this, but by turning thefe Vrie/Is
or Vrtshfters into BfJIjops^^nd is content to drop the V}es[^jterj to fave
the Bifljrij/s, wlio yet, without ?resbjters to back them, can make
bat a very WhiggijJj Figure. ,
Ju^im Martyr in his ^^'Vc?^ for the Chriflians relates that in
Every of their /^{Ttniblics there was one,
whom hecalls Prefide^t^ who Preached, Pray- jVSTm^ MARTTR
ed, confccrated the Euchariftical El&ments, Ann. Chr. 1 50.
which by the Deacons were diftributed to
thofethat w^re prefent, and fent to thofe that were Abfent (^). Rut
that this Vrefident, whereof there v»'3s one in each Chriftian AlTeml-ly,
was under the Jurifdi^iion of another Superior to himfelf ; or that he
had any others, except the Deacons, Inferiour to Himfelf; j^r////>? gives
not fo much as the leaft hint from the one end of his Works to the other.
Iren^as^ as we have heard the Learned Stillingfleet ah'eady con-
feffing, Attributes both the ApoftoHckSuccefTion
and the Epifcopate to the Presbyters; and moft I RENjEVS
exprefly makes them both one Order ('/'). 'It Ann. Chr. 180.
* is Neceffary, fanh he^ to withdraw from all
* iuch wicked Presbyters, but to cleave to fuch who, as we have
' faid before, both keep the Do^^rine of the Apoftles, and Soond
^ Speech with their Vresbyterid Order, andalforfiew an InofFcnfive
^ Converfation to the Information and Correction ot the red.
^ Such Presbyters does the Church bring up, concerning whom
^ the Prophet alfo faies, I mil give thy l^rirjces tn Peace and thy P,u
' foop in Right miirafs. And concerning v.'hom the Lord laid,
^ Who is that FatthfuLl and W/'? Steward whom the Mafter lets over
His HoujJjol'd, 'Tis plain then that Irtn, us makes his Presbyters
BiJbopSy and Biihops and Presbyters to be one and the fame Order;
X and
? .£m] Ubi Supra p. 20. [n] Ubi Sup.a Chap III. Se^. z [oj ApolJ. II. tJii.Gi.ic-. Lac.
Colon. 1626. p. P7.# [p] Lib. IV. cap. ^4,.
1.^2 Defence of the Chap, //.^
•' and, by neceffary Confequence, Presbyters muft needs have all
the lame Powers with Bifhops; which is the main thing contend-
ed for.In a Word, though B///;;^/? and Fr^i^j^^rwerediltinguiflied in
Ifenaush Hays, yet in all his Writings he has not given fo much
as the leaft Hint that that Diftindion was of Divwe Right: Hue
on the contrary ftill infinuates, that They are one and the fame
Officer in Point of Order,
J'<?r/»///4/?, as I have obferved before, founds the DiftinQion'iwixt
Bifhop and Presbyter not upon Divtne Right^.
TERTVLLIAN but the Honour and Order of the Church ; and
Ann. Chr. 203. reprefents the Presbyters 2iSfrefideing in the Eccle-
fiaftical Courts for the EKercife of Difcipline.,
^Judgment is palTed, faith he {q ), with great Weight as by
* thofe v^ho are perfwaded that God is Eyeing them ; and itis
*^thegreatefl: Fore- Token of the Future Judgment, if any one have
*^lo offended, as to be excluded from Communion in Prayerand of
^ the AlTembly and of all Religious Commerce. Certain approved
'Elders preftde who have obtain'd that Honour not by Price, but
*'by Teftimony. Thus he,
Clemens Jiexandrrnus Is msimiQfMy on our Side. * Thofe Offices, ,
* faith hef r), are an Imitation of the An-
CLEMENS * gelick Glory, and of that Difpenfation, ,
JI^EXANDRINVS ' which, as the Scriptures i^y^they wait for,
Ann, Chr. 204. ' who trading in the Steps of the Apoftles,
' live in the Perfedion of Evangelick
^ -Righteoufnefs; for thefe the Apoftle Writes,fhall be taken upinio the
* Clouds, and there iirit as Beacons zttcnd, and then according to
* the Procefsj or next Station of Glory, be admitted into the. Pref.
' ^jitry ; for Glory differs from Glory, till they increafe to a per-
£q6. Man. Which PaiTage, as Sir Peter Kjng has moft Judicioufly
obferved (i), proves, that in the Judgment of this Father there
were but two Ecclefiaffical Orders : The Inferior^ that of Dea*
ionsj who never fa at the Ecclefiaftical Conventions, but like Ser-
vants fiooU-y asthe Saints, v/hen caught up in the Clouds at the lad :
Day,
[ q ] Apolo;?. Cap. 39. f r]S;ron:ac. Lib. Y^- P- 4^J' : £sj Enijuiry i r.io.jlie Cejiftiuuicn of j;^
Sed. V; Presbyterian Government] 1^3
Day, {hdiWHand and wait on Chrift's Judgment Seat. The Superi^
cuts that of Presbyters^ defign'd alio by the Name of B/jljops ;
who, in the Ecclefiaftical Confiftories, always Jat on Thronts or
Seats ; juft as the Saints when the Judgment is over fhall be re-
lieved {^omjlmding or waiting, and have their Glory perfei^ed, in
being placed on the QQM\'\?i[Throms of that Sublime /^r^j^j^r^, where
they iliallbe forever BlefTed and Happy. In a Word, as there are
but two Procejjfes of the Saint's Glorification viz.. Handing before the
Judgment Seat, and being feated on a Throne of Glory, beyond
which there is no higher Dignity: So Clemens makes but two Or-
ders of Church Officers, Deacons to attend andferve, and Presbyters
to fu and Judge.
Origen^QQS indeed diftinguifh 'twixt Bi/hopsznd Presbyters^ But
no where can I find him founding the Diftin6ion
on Dz-^/z^f^Infti^ution. But I frequently find him 0 RIG EN
making mo it horrid Reprefentations of the Pomp Ann. Chr. 226.
& Pride and Prodigality of the Biihopseven inthefe
Times of Perfecution- Thus, upon thQ^cWords The Princes of the
Gentiles exerctje Dominion^ but ir jball not be fo among you, He runs out
into a molt Lamentable Complaint. ^ Thus, faith he (^t"), the Word
'of God teaches us. But we, eitheir notanderftanding the Will
*t)f God laid down in the Scripture, or contemning Chrift's Re-
' commendation, are fuch that we feem to exceed the Pride
' even of the wickedPrincesof theW^orld: And we not only as Kings
V fcek Armies togo before us. but we make our fclves terrible and
' moft difficult ot Accefs to the Poor j and are fuch to ihofe who
apply to us for any Thing,as even Tyrants and the more cruel Prin-
* ces of the World are not towards their SubjeSs. And we may fee
* in fome Churches efpecially of the greateft Cities the Princes ( that
* is the Bifiops ) ohhQ Chriltian People have no AfFdbiliiv, oraTiow
* Accefs to themfelves. And the Apoftle indeed chaiges even xVJa-
* fteis concerning their Servants faying, Mj/^^-j give unto your Ser»
* vants that which is Jufi and Equal^ knowing that ye aljohavea Majitr
* in Heaven, And he commands them alfo to forbear Threatntng,
{ But fome Bifhops threaten cruelly, fometimes indeed upon the Oc-
X 2 . ' cafion
•c j la Mac:h. Txa^. XII.
.164 Defence of the 'Chap. //,
*■ cafion of Sin, but at other Times out of Contempt of the Poor,
Thus Origen, i^nd all this State which theBifliops took on was the
more Intollerable, that their Title to the C/;/f/Yj feem'd fomevv*hai:
Dubious to him. ' h ^dlnot hefo (imonnjou^ that is, faith he^ Let not
*. thole who SEEM to have SOME Cheifty in the Church ad the
* Lords over their Brethren, nor exercife Power over them f.
Gregory Thaumaturgas^^s Dr. Barmt ( v) {]:Qm his Life writteri
GREGORivs ^y ^T7 ^^^'^7 'f^'T ^'"'r D.°7^ \ ^'^"^
Ann.Chr 22? ^ftraid ofengagmgin the Paftoral Charge,
^^* '' and therefoie avoided all Occafions ia
* which he might have been laid hold on and OrdainM; Which'
* Phedimus a Neighbouring Bifliop obfi^rving, though Gregory was
* then Dillanttkiee Days Journey from him, he did by Prayer'De-
* dicate him to the Service of God at Neocefarta where there were then
' but Seventeen Chriilians ; to which the other lubmitted,andcam.e'
* and lerved there. Whether he received any new Orders, is but
* dubioufly and darkly exprelTed by that Author. Thus Dr. i3r/r;y^r.
From which two Things appear. ¥ir[l. That Impfuion of Hands'
is not ablblutly neceffary to make a Church Officer as Mr. Rhiadi'
would ha e us believe. Secondly ^ That though Gregory \f/^s a Bi*
fl^op, yet it was but oi one Congregation, and a very (mail one too
at firll, fo that he neither had nor needed Prcbby ters.
Cjprim needs not be infilled on. M»\ "Jztmtjon f and M^.Lau-
. dtr -^ have fo learnedly and largely proved that the
CTPRIJN Cyprianic ?,\[Yo^ had neither abfolute Power, nor'
Ann.Chr. 240. Plurality of Congregations, nor a Negative Voice/
nor, in a Word, contributes any Thing to fupporc
tlie modern Epifcopacy ; that, to add were fuperfluous : And there-
fore I mult refers the Reader to their Labours.
f Inter vos autein.qui eftis jnei, nonerunr.,ha:c.- Ne forti qui viientiiy liiberc .r//(j;'fw in Ejclefia Prin-^
cipacum, dominen:ur Fratnbus propiii?, veJ poteflratem iueas exerceanr. On^en Trift. iz \v\ Mattb-L^:.
tjewcJj/ji'J.. Paiifiis. 11:04.. '1
(y; fJ>.l.ct tlicRighis of Priiices. p. 3. f Cypr. Ilbt, . * TUe Avitieu: Biflbop* coufideredj"..
Scd. V» Presbyterian Government. 1^5
Bafilitis Magnus in terms aflerts the equal Power of all Pallors
and Doclors. ' And x.h\s^ faith he ( Jc ), we are
taught by Chrift himfclf when he conftiiuted ?eter B ASI LIVS
Pallor ol his own Church after himfelf. For he MAGNVS
faith ; Peter love (I thou me more than thefe ; feed my Ann.Chr. 3 70.
Sheep, And to all Paftors and Do£lors that were
to come after, he gave an equal Power. And it is a Sign of this,
that they all in like manner bind and loofc as he did. Thus he.
AeriusA^ confefTed to have been Presbyterian, Bur, faith Mr.
Rhind^ He was an Infumous Heretick. Be it fo, yet
not a greater one than Tertullian, whom yet Mr, JERIVS
Rhind cited in favours of Epifcopacy. For, befides Ann.Chr.37u.
his Montariifm^ fome of the Learntdd: DoQors in
the prefent Roman Church h:we taken a great deal of Pains, faith
Y}^,Symon Patrick (y) to vc\'Aq the World believe that Tertullian
and a Number of other Ancient Fathers were infetled with the
Arian Herefy. But who faies that Aerius was a Heretick? Mr.
il/;//^^ anfwers, 'twas Bpiphanius Heres. LXXV. But who knows
not that Ej^iphanius\ Teltimony is of very fmall Weight? Is it not
his known Charader that his Learning was above his Judgment,
but his Invention above them both ? Was there ever a more piti-
full Piece written than his Book about Htreftes? Was there ever
any thing weaker than what he has advanced againft Aer/s^ even
upon the Point of Epifcopacyl Do not the Epifcopal Writers C ^)
themfelves own, that he has ipoken Nonfenfe on that Head ? Muft
not every Proteihnc own that Aerius was a better Man than him-
felf and more Oithodox in the Faith, when he condemned Prayers
for the Dead which Epiphanius undertakes to julfifie againft Him.
Is it not known that a great deal more has beenfaid to purge Aerius
from the Charge of Anarjifm than ever was, or perhaps, can be
faid itir proving him Guilty of it? Mr. Rlnnd then ought to have-
been a little more modeft in his Charader of Anius^iiW he had
difcourled the Matter more fully.-
Jmbrofe^
[ X ] Conllritut: Monaihc. Cap. XXII. [ y ] Oil BeU-min's II. Note ot the Church. ■ [2; J ^r*
J^ignolds Letter CO Sir Francis Knolls.-- Bellarmin, Tom. i. Contra, j. Lib. i. cap- 1^. •
i66 Defence of the Chap. //.
Amhrofet or the Hilary whom I cited before, upon thefe Words
Eph. IV. ij. And he gave Jome Afofiles, Gives a
AMBROSE plain Account of the Change. ' Aittrjaith he
Ann.Chr. 376. * (" ^ ), that Churches were planted in all
' Places, and Offices ordain'd, Matters were fetlcd
* otherwife than they were in the Beginning. And thence it
' is that the Apoftles Writings do not in all things agree to the
* prefent Conftitucion of the Church becaufe they were written un-
* der the firft Rife of th^ Church : For he calls Timothy, who
* was created a Fresbyter by him, a Bifhop : Forfo at fiiftthe
' Presbyters were called, among whom this was the Courfe of
* Governng Churches, that as one withdrew another took His
* Place, and in Egyp even at this Day the Presbyters Ordain in
* the BifhoVs Abfence. But becaufe the following it resbyters be-
' gan to be found unworthy to hold ihe firft Place ; the ^vkthod
' was changed, the Council providing that not O' der but Merit
* fhould create a Bifhop. Thus he And Augujhn, z^Sttllmojktt
(h ) obferves, cites thefe Commentaries with Apolaufe, wuhout
Stigmatizing him for a Heretick.
Chryfojiom delivers himfclf with abundance of Freedom on the Pre-
sbyterian Side. ' The Apoiiles,foirh he (c)^ having
CHRYSOSTOM * difcourfed concerning the Bfjbops & defcribtd
Ann. Chr. 398. * them, declaring what they ought to have,& irom
' whatthey oughttoablthiin J omitting the Order
* of Pr^i^j^^r/, hedefcsnds totheOf/«(:o/^/; ard why fo, but becaufe
* between Bijh^pk Presbyter there is no great Odds; and to them is
* committed both the Inftrudion & the Prefidency of the Church ;
* And whatever he feid uf Bi/hnps agrees alfo to Presbyters. In Or-
* diftation alone they have ^^;?^ beyond, and in this only theySeeni
\ to defraud ^^ the Presbyters. Thus he. And^ faith WtUet ( ^ )
* . the
[»] Tamen poftquam omnibus locis Ecclefise func Conftituta:, & Officia ordinara: Alirer compofit*
res ell, quani cxperat. — --Ideo non per omnia conveniun: Sciipca ApoftoU Ordmacioni qua: nunc in Ec-
clefia eli, quia hxc inter ipfa Primordia funt fcripra. Nam & Timocheum Presbyteiuni a fe creatum
Epif'-'opum vocat, quia primum Presbytcri Epifcopi appellebantui. Uc recedentc uno fequens ei fuccederec.
Denique apud iEgyptiira Presbyteri Confjgnanc, fi prxiens non fic Epifcopus. Sed quia Cxperunt fequenres
Presbyceri Indigni ir.veniri ad Primatus tenendos ; immucaca eft Ratio, profpiciente Conciho ; Uc non ordo,
fed meritum crearet Epifcopum, multorum Sacerdocum judicio contucucum,ne indigrius LCmere ufurpaiec §;
tflec multis fcandaliim. tAmh,of. in Eph. 4..
[b] Irenic.p. 313. [c ] In Prior Ep. ad Tim. Horn. ' XI.
' t Vide I Thefi: c. IV. \.6. in the Greek, and compare it WJch CkjyfoftoiQ's.
( i) Synops. Papis. Contiov. V. Quell. III. p. 273. ■'
Std:. V. Presbyterian Government. 167
the DiflinBion of BifLops and Presbyters, as it is now received, can*
not he diretily proved out of Scripture : And of this 'Judgment Bifljop
Jewell againji Harding fbeweth Cliryfoftom to have been. So that
here we have two Church of England Divines owning Chrjfojlor/t
to be on our Side.
AuguHtn in his Epiftle to 'Jerom difclaimsthe Divine InHitution
of Prelacy and founds it upon EccltfiaHtck Vfe,-
*Ahhough,A/>/'/'f'C^;, according to the Words AVGUSTIl"}
* of Honour, which Vfe has ^^ji? made fafliion- Ann. Chr. 420
* able in the Church the Epifcopate is greater than
* the Presbv terate : Yet, in many Things \s Auguflin inferiourto
Jerom, That this Teftimony is not ftrained, 1 appeal to Bifhop
^etvelPs Declaration. ' In St. Jeromes T'lttiG, faith he {f), there
' were Metropolitans, Archbifhops, Archdeacons and others, but
' Chr ift appointed not thefe Diftin6iions of Orders from the Begin-
* ning. This is the Thing which we defend. St. Jerom faith, Let
^ Bifhops understand that they are in Authority over Priefis wore hyCu*
' Bom thin hy Order of God'' sTruth. And Auguftin dQchres,That
' the Office of a BfjJjop ts above the Office of a Priefi not by Authority of
' the Scripture, but after the Names of Honour which the Qufiom of the
* Church hath now obtai?i'd. Thus Bifhop "Jewell.
Theodoret in like manner faith {g ), * The Apoftles callaPrtf-^-
* j^^r^-r a Bijhop,' as we fhe wed when we
* ■ exponed the Epiftle to the Philippians, which THE ODORE T
* may be alfo learned from this Place, for after Ann. Chr. 430,
' the Precepts proper to Bfhops, hedefcribes
' the Things that agree to Deacons: But, as I faid, ofOld theycal-'-
* led the fame Menboth B/fJjops2ii\d Presbyters. lilmsTheodoret, .
' Priwafius, who is faid by feme to have been Augu/lin^sBikiplQ
puts the Queftion I4^hj/ the Apofik leaps from the
Duties of Bifhops to the Duties of Deacons with- P R I MAS IVS^
$HL any , Mention ^'Presbyters; , and ' anfwers ■ Anno Chr. 440.
plainly)
, E * ] Qljanquamenim fecundiim Honorum Vocabula, quse jam Ecclefia; iifiis obtinuit. Epifcopatui Pi'<*
sbycerio major fie: Tameii in mukis Rebus »/J«^«/h»/</ H/f/-o»)iJMO minor elt, udfl-.i-V- JSv
iU Apolog. Paruii.C.III-Div.vj. .Li] Ippaoj Ep.iidTi». CHI. -
1^8 Defence of the Chap. //,
plainly as before, That Bidiops ^W Presbyters are the fame Degree (h).
Sedulius Quv Countryman, in liis Ccmmentaries on Tit. j. afTerts
the Identity of B//Z?(9/> and P^'^j^j^fr, that not only
SEDV LIVS the Names are interchangeable, but the Ofiice the
Ann. Chr.470. fame; many of them being to be found in one
City ; which could not be true of D/^ta/^^y Bifliops.
'And for Proof and Inftance he adduces the Elders of tphefus A6is
XX, whodv/elling all in one City, though they are called Elders or
Presbyters it- the ijverfe are yet called BiQiops in tlie 28 wrfe. ^ In-
deed it was no wonder Sedrdius was Preshyeri<in : For though he
wrote not his Ccmz/e^Uries till he went abroad, yet in ScotU-od^
^vhete he was born and bred, there was no fuch thing as a Bijjjo^
while he lived in it (J)\ whatever Spoifwood hjth faid to the Contrary,
The Second Coiwcil 0^ Scv/l pWinly declares, That tlwngh there
are mm-j VunEitons of the MtniHry common to
CONCILIUM the Preshyters with the Bifjjops, yet BY THE
HISPALENSE.il modern and ecclesiastical
Ann.Chr. 619. RULES, there are fame Funcfions denyed to
them^fuch as the Ordination of Preshyters ( k^.
That Coumil^ we fee, does not infiflupon Divine Right^ but upon
Ecclefaflical Rules^ and owns the Appropriation of Ordinrition to
the Btfljop to be a Modem Pra6iice.
I might alfo give the Teftimony o^Theophjia^, who is faid by
fome to have flouriQied about the Year Eight
THEOPHTLACT Hunder and Eighty, but placed by Brromus
Ann. Chr. 880. in the Year 1071. But his Teftimony being
the fame with that of Chryfoflom whofe Echo
jSt i II i/igflee f czWshim, I need not repeat his Words.
Oecumemus, faid by fome to have lived in the Eight, by fome in
the Ninth, and by others put off till the Eleventh
OECVMENIVS Century. Upjn ABs XX. 17, thus delivers
Ar.n. Chr. 900. himfi:lf. * Many are Ignorant of the Manner
' efpecially of the New Teftamenr, whereby
hijhops
[ h ] In I Tim. III. [ i ] See Dalrymple's Colka:, C. IV. V. SednliJ Poem. FrcFat ' Dipin
CeiK. V. p. 5-0. [ k ] Caranz. Sumin. Concil. Hifpal. Can. 7 p. [ mihi ] 165; Qiiamvis cum Epifcopis plu-
lima illis Muufteiiorum conim'j«is fic difpenfacio, cjuwdam Ndvellis & Ecdefiafticis reguhs fjbl pr&iiil>i-
t4 noyeriiu, ricu:fiesby:eroium Coiiiccrano.
Std:. V» Presbyterian Government. j6c}
BijJjops are called Presbyters, and Presbyters Bifliops. This may be
obferved both from this Place, and from the EpiRleto Tttus, and
from the Epiftle to the F/ji/ippiam,^nA from the firft Epiftle to Tmothy.
From this Place therefore of the Acts we may arrive at the Certainty
of this Matter : For thus it is written, Fiftfw Miletus hefent md called the
Elders of the Church. It is not faid,the Bifhops ; and yet afrer wards he
fubjoins, Over which the Holy Ghofl hdth made you Bifliops to feeder rule
the Church. And from the Epiftle to Titus, That thou mightefi-- appoint
Elders in every City, which E/^^-r/ are afterwards called Bifhops. And
from the Epiftle to the Philippians. To all that are at Philippi viih the
B.'jhopsafjd Deacom. And,asl believe,thefame may be gathered from
the firft Epiftle to Timothy. If any Man defire the Office of a Btfiop^ he de.
fires a good l^^ork. Thus Oectdmenius.
To all thefe we may join the Canon Law, in which we find Pope Vr*
han pronounceing in thefe Words. We call the
Diaconate and the Presbyterate the Sacred Orders, CANON LAIV
for thefe ALONE the primitive Church is read to
have had (' /),
And nowlthinki may conclude with Jf^r^jw's Teftimony, who
has declared more roundly for Presb^try, than any,
perhaps ^//the Fathers together ever did for Epif- J E RO M
copacy, y^r«?«?, I fay,of whom iEr^/w«i witnefTeth, Ann. Chr. 385.
that He Wis, without Contr over fy, the moji Learned
of all Chr iflians, Prince of Divines, and for Eloquence that he excelled
Gieero. We have heard him already in his famous Epiftle
to Evagrius, And Mr, Rhin^ p. 114 feems as if hewou'd have
his Reader believe that that is the only Place in which he declares
for Presbytry, But herein he impofes upon his Reader : For elfc-
where viz, in his Commentaries upon the Epiftle to Thus, he de-
clares yet more explicitly for 'P/'^%?rj/, if more can be, than in that
famous Epiftle. Nor does he manage his Bufinefs, as the pretend-
ed Patron of Epifcopacy the falfe Ignatius does his, by a Flow of
Words and high ranting ExprelTions which muft needs give Scan-
dal to all the World j but he talks like a Learned Man, reafons
Y the
[1] Decree, ima pars Difl. 5o. c. 4 nulhu hiEfif. Sacros aucem oiuincs dicimus Diacouaci m & Presby-
teratum, Hos Iniuidem Iblos rnmitiva k^icur nabuille Ecciefia.
170 Defence of the Chap. 77.
the Matter, applies bimfelftobls Reader's Underftancling,does not
put lum off with Rapture and Harangue, but convinces him by plain
downright Argument. Ilhallgive hisTeftimony atlarge,& fomuch
the rather, that it contains almoft all the Serif ture Arguments for
Presbytry.
* Let m^U'tthhe ( m )^ carefully heed the Words of the Apoftle
* fayins^, That thou wayeji Orddin Elders ift every City as I have ap-
^ poimedthee. Who, difcourfing in what follows what fort of P;'^-
^shytetowo^ht to. be Ordained, fays this. If any one be blamelefs.the'
* Husband of one Wife &c afterwards adds, For a Bijhopmtift be bUme^
^ lefs as the Steward of God. A Presbyter is therefore the /rfw? with a
' Bifljof, And before that, by the Devil's Inftind, there were Par-
* ties in Religion: And it was faid among the People,/ amofVaul^
^ ■lofjpollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were Governed by the
^Com7?2onCouncel of Vvtsbytcrs, But after that every one began to
* think that thofe whom he had Baptized were his own notChrift's.*
* It was decreed in the whole World, that c;?e chofen from among
' the Presbyters fiiould be fet above the ReR, to whom all care of the
* Church ihould belong, and that the Seeds of Schifms might be
' taken away. If any one think that this is our Judgment, and not
^ the Judgment of the Scripiuresthat £l Bffi^p ^nd Presbyter QYcofte;
*and that the one is a Name of Age, the orherof Office: Let him
' read again the Words of theApoftle to the Philippians faying,
* Yaul and Thnothetil the Servants of Jefr^s Chrijl^to all the Saints in
^ Chrijl 'JeftiS that are' at Philfppi, ivith th Bifbops and Deacons^ Grace
* toyou and Peace and fo on. Pbilippi hone City of Macedonia ; and
* furely in one City there could not be a Plurality of fuch as are
* = called B/fiops» But bscaufe at that Time they called the fame
* Perlbns ^'rfb ops ^nd Presbyters: Therefore he (pake indifferently
' of Bi&ops as of Presbyters, ' This may yet feem doubtfull
*^tofomc,unlefs it be proven by another TeRimony. In the-^^^i
' of the Apoftles it is written, that )vhe/y the Apojile had come to Mile-
* tuSy he fent to Ephefas and c died the Presbyters of that hmQ Church,
* to whom afterward among other Things he faid : Take heed to your
^ f elves and to all the Flock^ over which the Holy Gho{l hath made you
I BiihopSj to feed the Church of the Lord^ which he hath pur chafed
&it/j .
(m ) Comment, ia T.:.
Se^ V^ VrcshytCYian Government. 171
' ivith hii own Blood, And here obferve carefuHy, how calling
' the Presbyters of the f?;?^ City of £/>i^£/}/i, he afterwards calls the
* fame?QV^onsBiJbops. If any will receive that Epiftle, which is v/ritten
* to the Hebrews under the Name oiPatd i There alio the Care of the
* Church is equally divided among many : For he writes to the People,
* Obey thein th:it /j.ive (he Rule ov?rjou^and fubmif your fches^ for they
* watch for your Souls as thofe that mnfl give an Account ^that they may
* twt do it jvith Grief, for this is unprofitable for you. And Veter
* who received his Name from the Strength of his Faith, fpea-
^ keth in his Epiftle faying, T/^^Pz-^j^j/Z^ri who are among you 1 exhort,
* who am alfo a Vresbyter^and a IVitneJ's of the Suffer ir/gs of Christ and a
* Partaker of the Glory that flj all Ire revealed^ feed the Flock of the Lord
* which is among you, not as oj Neceffliybut willingly. We havealledg-
' ed thefe Things, that we might fliew that among the An-
* cients the Presbyters were the fame with the Btjhops : But that by
* little and little the Roots of Diflention might be plucked up, the
* whole Care was devolved upon o/;^. As therefore the Presbyters
' know that Ify the CuHom of the Church they are Subject to him
f who is fet over them: So let the Bifhops know that they are
* greater than the Presbyters rather by CuHom, than the Truth of
* the Lord's Difpoftion or Ordering, and that they ought to govern
* the Church in Common, imitating Mofes, who when he had it ia
^ his Pov/er 4/^/;^ to govern the People of lfrael,cho{Q Seventy with
f whom he might Judge thePeople. Thus Jerom, And I know not how
any Scots Presbyterian could have written more patly in Favours of
Fresbytry. Yet Mv.Rhindh^s many Things to except againft Jeromes
Teftimony : Whom therefore I referved to the Lafi,putting him out
ofthe due Order of Time,that I might confider thdQ Exceptions mih*
out interrupting the Lift.
I. He excepts p. 114. ' That Jerom lived too late to Teftifie
' concerning Matters of Fa6l that happened about the Beginning
* oi thQ Seco?;d Century. Now Jerom was born AnnoChr. ^29.
Did he live too late to Teftifie of what happened within lefsthan
200 Years before his Eirth? If To, the Teftimony of moft Part of
the Fathers, nay indeed of almoft all Hiftorians will be of very little
worth. Do we at this prelent live too late to Teftifie concerning
the Form of Government which obtained in ^^rt;//^/;^ about the Year
1520, when almoft every Plo^vman can tell it was Popery?r
II. Hq Q^QQpts, ihsit Jerom is bwtTefttsSingularis, Ibid* 'Tis'true,
Y 2 M
172 Defence of the Chap, //.
if a fcore or moe be the Came Thing with one, thm^erom is Teftis
lingular is. But when we have found fo many of the Fathers con-
curring with him, I need not tell how falfe that Exception is.
III. He excepts, Ibid, ♦* That J^ro/?? deftroys the Credit of h?s
' own Teftimony, by contradiding himfelfin this very Point. Iti
* £/>///. ad Heliodor. and Nefotianh in Comment in ?f, 45. vers, 16,
The very Truth is, there are few of the Fathers ^Yiod^o not in fome
Points contradid themfelves as well as one another. But, for thefe
Phices which Mr. Rhind hdis cited ; they fignifie nothing, unlefs he
had pointed to the particular Wordsof'em wherein he thinks jT^ro/^
has contradided himfelf. For Inftance, in the Epift, to Hdidor. he
makes the Presbyters to fucceed to the Apon:les,and to have the
Power of Excommunication ^cCn). I apprehend this is no Argui
ment either for Evifcopacy^ or that he has contradicted himfelf. And
that he has neither there, nor indeed any where elfe contradided
himfelf in this point; Stillin^pet is a pretty competent Witnefs*.
'Among all the 7^/fe^;^ Teftimonits,/^///' he ( 0 ), produced by a
'learned Writer out of Jemv; for the Superiority of Bifhops above
^^ Presbyters, I cannot find one that does found it upon Divide Rtghr^
* hist only on the Convenience of fuch an Order^ for .the Peace and
' Unity of the Church of God.
IV. He excepts, /^/W, That itreproacheth the Wifdom of our Lard
Apd bis ApoHles to ftippofe that ths] did efiablijjj a FormofGovernriiei'it
r.ecFJfMlj frodutitve of Schifru : This is to his old Tune of prefcribe-
ing to Chrift and the Apoftles. The Government which they efta-
bliOied, v^^hich,! hope, we have proven to have been ^resbyteriant
did not mcefftrly, that is, in the Nature of the Thing, produce
Sehifms; but by Accident only. Our Saviour forefaw that Schifms
would arife even under the Government of Divine Inltitution. iiappofe
ye, that I :am come to give Peace o;i Earthj I tell you nay^ but rather Dim
vipoN. Luke Xn. 51. . And the Apofties not only forefaw but kit
it. I .hear s hat there be Divifions among you, i Cof^T XI. 18. And
yet they would not prevent them by fetting up,a Government that
fliould
[ n J Abut lit ds his qiiicqisani rii-:illnim loqnar, qui Apoftolico gradi'i Succedeuces Chrifti Corpus fa-
*ro.Die coiiHciunt. Miiji 4n:e rvcsbyccrum Icdere.uon licet ^ llli,fi peccaveto,Ucec.uadei-e.ine5au-i»
£0 J /;-c7><<r. p. ,277. 7.
Sbdi^ V. Presbyterian Government. 175
fhould be utterly incapable of them. No. God had infinitely wife
Ends to ferveby not doing ir. I hear thauhere Ipc DtviJiof7s {Schisms)
oinongyou^ and 1 pxrilj belitve ir. For then mufc be alfo hlerefits (SeQsJ
among jou that thty which are approved^ may be made manifeji amongyou,
I Cor. XI. i8. 19.
V. He excepts p. 1 1 5, ' that it is too fevere a Charge to be of-
' fered againll the Catliolick Church, that it would endeavour 10
'heal thele Breaches by a Device of its own Invention, that is,
^ Do Evil thai Good might come of it, I anfwer. ' Tis confeiTed,
the Charge is Severe; but that which makes it fo is, that it is
perfc^ly true ; and not in tiiat only, but in a Thoufand other Cafes ;
as is evident from the innumerable Corruptions, which, by De-
grees, did overfpread the whole Church. And Whitahr ( Their
own (^^///Y^yCTr) difcourfing of jf^rc?w's forefaid Teftimonies very
frankly tells * that the Remedy was almoft worfe than the Difeafe.
* For as firfl one Presbyter was fet over the refi-, and made Bi-
' fliop; fo afterwards one Bifhop was fet over the reft. And fo
' that Cuftom begot the Pope with his Monarchy, and by little
' and little brought them into the Church. Thus he C/>). And
'tis certain that Schifms were never fo frequent as after Epifcopacy
prevailed ; and BifJjops themfelves were generally either the Au-
thors, Occafion or Fomenters of them. And Ancient Hiftoriesfup-
ply us wifn fuchdreadfull Accounts of fuch Murder, Blood flied and
Horrid Barbarities, committed by the coniending Parties at the E-
leSiicn of Bifhops, as are not to be parallelled among the Heathens.
So much in Vindication of ''Jerom^ who, I hope, is ftill fafe to us
after all Mr. Rhii^d's Exceptions.
And now to conclude this Argument: It was fo far from be-
ing morally impoffible that Prelacy {hoxAdi obtain, even in fpite of
the Divine Inftitution of Presbytry^ that, conCdering the Corru-
ption of Human Nature, it had bsen next to a Miracle if it had not
obtained; For is there any Thing to which Man is more violent-
ly addided than the thwarting God's Inftitutions ? Did not this
Humour
[p] Sed ipfo morbo detcrius pene Remedium Uiir ; nam ut pi iino untis Presbyter reli-jiiis pvxhciis e(l.
gcfacVus Epifcopus: lea poftea uiius Epifcopus ieli4uis eft- Pr»;lacus. Sic iila Coufuctudo P^pim ciua
fua Monarcliia peperat, 5c i'aulatim in Ecclefum invexu. Dc Re^m- Ectief. p. ^+2-
174 Defence of the Chap, 11,
Humour begin to work even in the Varadiftacal StztQ? What a
fine Speech could Mr. Rhh?d make to difprove the Ifraelits making
the Golden Calf nHoreb \ ' No. 'Twas morally impoffible they
' fhould. God had delivered them out of Egyp with a mighty
' hand, and in a wonderful! Manner ; Fie had dryed up the Red
* Sea before 'sm, and drown'd their Enemies in it : He had given
* them the Law with all the Solemnities of Majefty and Circum-
' fiances of Terrour; Therein he had exprefly inhibited 'em to
' make unto themfelves any graven Image ; They had in the moft
* Solemn Manner Stipulate Obedience. Would they nov/ after all
' this, within forty Days too, lb impioiifly oppofe God, fo perfidi-
* ouily violate their own Engagem.ents as to contraveen that Law?
' No. The MenoVQm furely were Mafiers of more Pveafon : The
Womef? and Children were more fond of their Jewels and Ear-
Rings, than to part v/ith them to be melted down into an Idol.*
All of 'em had either a warmer Senfe of God's late Mercies, or
a more terrible Impreffion of his Majefty and Juitice from the
late Appearance he had made on Mount Swai^ than to venture
on fuch a Prank. Soppofe they had beenall willing, yet, would
ever Aaro'/i have complyed with theMotion.? No. It mud needs
* be all Legend and Fable. And, which confirms this; Jofephus,
* who has given usfo Judicious and accurate a Hiftory of the Jews^
* is utterly Silent ofir. And yet, how impoiTible loever it was,
there is notwithftanding a certain Book which common Folks call
the Bible, and Chridians believe to be the Divine Oracles that
aiTures us that the Pe-c?//^ urged it Aaron did it, and the molten
Calf was fet up and confecrate Vi'ith great Triumph and without
Contradiction, Thefe be thy Gcds 0 IJradivhicb brought thee out of
the Lmd of E^y^t ; And without any further ACi for Corformily
the People got op early next Morning, and offered up their Ojieff
to the Calf, the God and the Sacrifice being out of the fame Herd.
So eafie a Thing is it to make a Change in Religion to the worfe,
yea and to bring about an wnverfd Compliance with the Change.
Vain Mf.n jvcuid be ivife, though He be born like a. wild Afs*s Colt,
There is NoLhing Men in all Ages have been more bewitched
vvirh than an irch of Refineing upon God's Appointments. And,
a Conceit that they were able to better them, and that execrable
Ffinciple
ScSt, VI. Presbyterian Government. 175
Principle, That they had Power to do fo^ have been the Original of
all the Corruptions that have ever defiled or pefter'd the Church.
'Tis Plain that all the Fopperies and Ceremonies that have crept
into the Worfliip of God owe their Birth to this. And 'tis nolcfs
plain from Jemn's former Account, that Prelacy was hewn out of
the fame Quarry. Some afpireing Men have coloured their Am-
bition with the Pretext of remeeding Schifms J and there!]:, either
through want of Thought or Courage, have been gulFd into a
Compliance, or blinded pofFibly with the hopes, that the Dignity-
might one Day fall to their own Share. But enough of this.
S E C T. V L
Wherem ilfrs Rhind*^s Keafonings againft the:
Presbyterian Kuling^Elders and Deacons^ arm
Examined. From P, 102 to P. 107.
THE Main Part of the Gontroverfy viz. Whether the Or»
der of Bifbops as Supcriour to Presbyters he of Divine
Jpoflolical hsiiti/tio^, being thus difcuffed ; we are next
to confider what Mr. Rhird has advanced againft the
Presbyterian Ruling-Elders and Deacons, • And /// againft tha
Ruling Elders. .
ART;.
%'j6 Defence of the Chap, iJ,
ARTICLE I.
Wherein Mr. Rhind^i- Keajonings againfi the Pre-
shyterian Ruling-Elders^ are Examined.
L TJJ E 0bje8s that the Preshyterian Rullng-EIder Is an Officer
1 .1 of Cahin\ Inftitution p. 102. But here His Hillory has
failed him: For the Churches of Bohemiahad fuch Officers before
^ver Calvm fet up the Difcipline of Gemva, And Martin Bucer
Divinity Profeflbr in Cambridge approved and commended the
Bohemian Practice ; and juftified it both from the Scripture and from
the Writeings of the Fathers. This was long fince fuggelied by
the Presbyterian Authors (q^: And I do not find that ever any
Anfwer was returned to it ; But there is no other way of furniniing
out #f the Epifcopal Books, but by repeating the fame baffled Ar-
guments over and over again. 'Tis plain then, how Modern fo-
ever tlie Order of Ruling-Elders may be, yet it is not of Calvin'^s
Inftitution.
II. He obje8s, ibid. * that fuch an Officer was never heard of in
*- the Churchy //// i 500 tears after the fealing of the Canon of the Scri-
pure. But here he is out again in Point of Hiftory, yea and con-
tr^di*S^s his former Argument: For, by the common Account, the
Canon of the Scripture was not fealed before the Year of Chrift
96. The Difcipline and Ruling-Elders were eftabliflied at G^-^^^/^
in the Year 1)1^42. So that he is wrong in His Account by more
th^n 50 Years, even keeping within the Bounds of the Reformation
by Calvin.
III. He
£ q J AIc. Damafc. p. {Jpj.
Sed' VI. Presbyterian Government: i 77
III. He objeBs, ihid, that there is not a Title concernin?^ them in
the Bible. This is not arguing, but Impudence. We have an Ac-
count of them Rom, XII. 8. in thelc Words, He that ruleth^ with
Diligence, And i Qor. XII. 28. we have them mentioned under
the Title of Governments, And i Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders th^t
rule rvell be counted worthy of double Honour ^ efpecially they who labour
in the Word and Docfrine. ' By which Words, faith Dr. Whitaker
' in his PreleflionSj the Apoftle manifeftly diftinguiflieth betwixt
' the Bifhops and InfpeQors of the Church. If all that rule well
* are worthy of double Honour, efpecially they who labour in the
' Word and Dodlrine, it is clear there wereiome who did not la-
' hour; For if they had all done fo, theText had been Nonfenfc.
* But the Word efpecially makes the DitTercnce. If I fliould fay,
* that all thefe who ftudy at the Univerfity are worthy of double
* Honour, efpecially they who labour in the Study of Theology ; I
* behoved either to mean, that all do not apply themfelves to the
^ Study of Theology, or I fhould fpeak Nonfenfe. Wherefore I
* confefs that to be the moft genuine Senfe of the Text by which
* the Paftors and Doclors are diftinguiflied from thofe who only
* governed Kow. Xlt. 8. And concerning whom we read in Ar^i-
' hrofe on i Tim. V. Thus that great Light and Patron of the Church
of England (r^. But what faies Mr. K^/W to it ? Not one Syl-
lable. He owns the Presbyterians found upon Texts of Scripture,
but is fo wife as not to name them, far lefs to eflay to wring
them from the Presbyterian Senfe. And indeed his Conduf^ in this
is wifer than any where elfe in his Book : For, it would touch any Man
of Bowels with Commiferation to fee into what various Forms the
Epf copal Writers twifl: themfelves to avoid the Force of the Text
lafl: cited. It has hut fourteen Words in the Original even Particles
included; and they have put at leaft/^^r^r^^^^ Senfes on it. Dido'
clavius difcuffed ten of them in his Days, and they have been ever
fince inventing new ones : And had Mr. Rhtnd told us which of
'em he pitched on, I don't believe it would be any hard Matter to
Z ■ difcufs
C r ] Apud Didoclav. p. <J8i. Ex Sheervodio.
iy§ 'Defence of the Chap. //
difcufs that too, unlefs it be one of his own which the World ne^
ver yet heard of; for indeed the Senfe of the Text is fo very obvi-
ous that none can mifs it who does not induftrioufly refolve to tor-
ture it. He faw very well that he could have made but afcurvy
Figure, had he tryed- his Critical Talent on it; and therefore he
had recourie to the Popular Art of Declaiming againft \\\t Ignorance
ov Difwgenuity o{ i\\Q Presbyterum \ And every Body muft own
that this was both more eafie and innocent, than if he had fallen to
the wrefting of Scripture, which would have both expoled his
VVeaknefs, and made him Liable to Damnation. And yet he is
unlucky even in that fame Popular Art, the Epifcopal Writers them-
felves having proclaimed it Jgmrmce to take the faid Text in any
other than the Vresbyterian Senfe. ' Art thou fo Ignorant^ faith
* theforecited Whitaker ^s) to Dury the Scots Jejuit, that thou
^ knoweft not that there are Elders in the Church of Chrift whofe
' Work it is to govern onlyy not to preach the Word or difpenfe
' the Sacraments. . t. . r r r i. n /•
IV. He Ob)e£ls p. 105, that thu, viz. the bulinefsof xhtRulmg'
Elders feems to be the weak Side of the ?arty^ their more Learned Ad-
mcates havifig abandoned its Defence, Who are thefe pray? Nay,
we muft Vv^ait for a Second Edition of his Book e'rewe know that.
'Twas his Bufmefs to afert not to frove. For my own part I nei^
tlier know, nor can hear of any Vresbjterian, Learned or Unlearn-
ed, that has abandon'd its Defence. 'Tis true Mr. "^amefon of late
has faid ( t ), that the Ruling-Elders are not in a Hridt Senfe Church
Officers, and retraQs any Thing he had faid before to the contrary.
And him indeed I acknowledge to be a very Learned Man. But
has he therefore abandon'd the Del^nce of the K«//>^.£/^'m?, No,
He owns they are the Reprefentatives of the Sacra Plebs, Hq has
proved by very many Am]jomks^ Efifcopal too among the reft that
fuch ought tobe in the Churh. Nay, the very Argument of hisChap-
ter isThe Divine Right of Ruling EidQVbfu/iaineci. Where then is that
Advocate for Presbytry that has abandon'd its Defence?: If any
has,
[ s ] Ita ignarus es, uc cffe in Civvifl:i Ecclefia Preabyteros ixefcias qui gubemauoni UBtuin, aou veifei
ant,Sacrameritoium AdmijiiftrationiiOferam , dartnc»ii.,
Lil ^y^^v ifot. p.. ,549.; ..
Scdt Vh Vrcshytcmn Government 179
has, we arc not likely to be altogether lofers, the Advocates for
Prelacj having taken it up. Not to name again the Learned W;/-
taker, Dr. Whiil^j on the forecited Text has delivered himfelf ac-
cording to our Hearts will]. * The Elders, faith he, among the
* Jews were of two Sorts, i)?. Such as goveK/ied in the Synagogue.
* And 2i/y, Such as miniftred in reading and expounding their
' Scriptures and Traditions, and from them pronounceing what
* did Bind or Loofe, or what was forbidden, and what was law-
* full to be done And thefe the Apoftle here declares to be
* the moft honourable, and worthy of the chiefell Reward ; Ac-
* cordingly, the Apoftle reckoning up the Offices God had ap-
* pointed in the Church, places Teachers before Governments i
J Cor. XII.
V. He Objefls, p. 104, That all the Eccleftafticks in the Jpojfolical
Age were initiated into their reppeftive Offices by the Impofit ion of Hands,
whereas Ruling- Elders are admitted hj no fuch Ceremony, or if there he
any Solemnity ufed at all in their Designation to the Office^ it is perform
med by every Pariflj MiniHer in his private Congregatiton-, which is con-
trary to ?vesby tQvian Principles 'j and is to exercife the f ok Power of
Ordination, wbich is not fo much as pretended to by Bifiops. 'Tis An-
fwered i/, The want of the Impofition of Hands will not argue them
to be no Church Officers. Not to mention the Apofiles and Gregory
Thaumaturgus^oi vjhom before; Ignattus\\\m{Q\i ( if all Traditions
are true ) was notordain'd by Impofition of Hands (1^). No Body
doubts it is verylawfull; and for my own Part I heartily wifh it
were praftifed ; but I deny that it is abfolutly necefTary, there being
no Precept enjoining it, and the Gift of the Holy Ghoft in his extra-
ordinary Charifmata which accompanied the Impofition of the A-
poftles Hands being now ceafed. And of this Judgment are not
only Presbyterians, but even the moft learned Men of the Church
oiRome her felf, though other wile fo much addicted to Ceremonies.
Of this, to omit other Teftimonies, that Judicious Hiftorian Father
Paul informs us ( jc ). ' Melchior Cornelius a Portugal, faith M,feem-
J ed to fpeak muchtoihePurpofe, who faid, the Apoftles did un-
Z 2 doubtedly
fv] Dr. Wake's Genuine" Ep. id. Edit. p. H*
i8d Defence of the Chap. Ih
* doubtedly ufe Tmpofitlon of Hands in Ordination, fo that none
' is mentioned in the Holy Scripture without that Ceremony ; which,
* infucceeding Ages was thought to be fo effential, that Ordination
* was called by that Name. Notwithftanding Gregory the Ninth
' faith, It was a Rite broaght in, and many Divines do not hold
' it to be neceiTary, howfoever others be of the contrary Opinion.
' And the famous Canonifts, HoHienfis^ Joannes Andreas^ Abbas and
' others do affirm, that the Pope may Ordain a Pfieft with thels
' Words only. Be thou a PrleH, and which is of more Importance,
* Innocentius Father of the Canonifts faith : That if the Forms had
* not been invented, it had beenfufficient if theOrdainer had ufed
* thefe Words only ; or others Equivalent, bscaufe they were infti-
* tuted by the Church afterwards to beobferved. o^dly. That Bi-
fhops do not pretend to the Sole Power of Ordination is fliamelefsly
faife. We have given Teftimony before p.65 that they not only
freteffd to it, bwifra^tife it. And after that Heap of Proofs which
Mr. Jamefofi has brought in his Cy^rianus Ifotimus^ov that Purpofe,
a Man mufl be even fteel'd in the Forehead that denies it. And
even when the Presbyters are admitted to join with the Bifhop in
A8s of Ordination, it is meerly as WitneiTes or Gonfenters, not as
having theleaft Share of Power. This, Mr. Dr^/r)/ has mofi; round-
ly afferted in the Vifdication of his Ar/fiver to Mr. Boyje'^^ Sermon
concerning the Scriptural Bifhop; and, as I am imformed is digni-
fied with the Title of DOCTOR for his Pains. ' All, fakh be, that
* the Presbyters had to do was only to give their Confent, and to
*• let the Church know that fo S:icred an A^lionwas not done rafhly,
* nor cut of Favour and Aff(i8:ion. That they had no Divioe
'Right to concur with the BirDop,that the Power of Ordination was
'in the Bifiiop^/c?/?^, the Presbyters were only allowed to perform
* a fliare in the outward Ceremony. 5-5^/}, That the Solemnity ufed
intheDefignation of the Ruling Elders to their Office iscontraryto
fresbjterUn Principles, Mr. Rhi?jd ought to have proved not mesrly
afferted : For by doing fo he has mightily expoled himfelf. 'Tis true
it is performed, by every Fariih Minifter in his private Congrega*
tion, he alone enjoins them their Duty, takes their Engagements,and
byfolemn Prayer fets them apart for the Office. , And, as this is
tlijelrcoaiiancPfac^ice^ fo they Imve.ftili owii'd'it tO-be doeir.Prin-
cipJe.
SqS:'. VL Presbyterian Governmentl i S i
ciple, that it Is lawfull to do fo. But then the Tryal is made by the
Minifter and Eiderfljsp of the Congregation ; or, in want of thcfc, by
the Presbytry-y and the iv/zt;/? People are by a pub'ick Edidl allowed,
nay required to reprefent their ObjeQions againft their AdmilTion,
ifany they have. This is to treat the People hke rational Creatures:
Whereas, the Bifliop's putting men into Deacon's or Priejfs Orders
privatly in his own Chamber, which was the conftant Piaftice in
the late Epifc&pd Times, not only choaks Reafon, makes Bealis of
the People; but is contrary to the whole Stream of Antiquity, ' The
' People themfelves, as it is in Cyprian (^j), having efpecially the
* Power of chufmg worthy Priefts, orof rejeding fuch as are un-
* worthy.
VI. He Obie£ls p. 105, that the Scriptural Presbyters were to
continue ad. VitamautCulpam. lanfwer, fo 2iXQ\\\Q Presbyterian El-
ders. For once an Elder ftill an Elder ^ unlefs he is depofed forMal-
verfation. If in (bme great Towns they are relieved in Courfe by o-
therSjOr Honourably difmiffed upon their Defire, when Agedifables
them for Service, this is only fuch an Allowance as was made to the
Levites under the Law ; and therefore is not inconrulent with the
Character 0^ 2i Chinch Officer'.
VII. He obie5\s, Ibid, * That the Scriptural PresbJ/ters were al-
^ lowed their proper Maintenance, whereas the Presbyterian EV^qxs
* plead no Tide to any fuch Thing, but are rather lofers by the Inter-
'ruptionof their Trades. The Anfwer is plain. The fame Scri-
pture which founds their Office, entitles them to Maintenance. For
the double Hwoar QQKmnX"^ imports nolcfs. But that they do not
plead it, is, becaufe the Government has fetled no Fund for that
Purpolc, and that in the prefent Circumftancesthey know it would
be in vain to plead it. But will that make them ao Church Officers?
yj^as Paul no Church Officer, becaufe he made the Go/pel of ChriH
without Charge 1 Cor. IX 18 ? Are not the Epifcopal Deacons Church
Officers? They are not now provided in any Maintenance, where-
as in the Primitive Church, they were, as Jerom witnelTeth, better
feen tothan the Presbyters themfelves ( z. J, 'Tis irqe the Presbyterian
Elders
[y] Plebsipfa maxime habec poreflatem vel Eligendi di£nos Sacerdo!'«s vcl indignps recufandi. Ep- 67.
. -, 1 A - '" "■ -^ ■■■ ■ -^ventle Lucas miaorem, Saccidouo efle Tiajorem. £/>. ad
tSa Defence of the Chap- //.
Elders are fometimes avocate from their Em ploy ments by their OfRce;
But this only fpeaks forth their Generous Temper, in that they pre-
fer the pnblick Service of the Church to their private Tntereft. Nor
are they likely to be lofers thereby : For, God mil not be unmindfully
mr forget their Work and Labour of Love,
VIII. Reargues, Ibid. * Were there any Foundation for fuch
* an OfRce in the Holy Scriptures, whence viras it that Ruling-El-
* ders di'iA. fo early, fo univerfally and fo tamely give up their Di*
* vine Right,that there isnooHce Mention made of any fuch by Di-
* vine Right in the Homilies and Commentaries oi the Fathers. For
Anfwer, I fhall read to Mr. Rhind a, Homily from the Commenta-
ries of one of the Fathers. ' AgQ^Jatth theforecited Ambrofe or Hi-
> lary{a)^\s honourable among all Nations, M/hencefirft the Syna-
* gogue and afterwards the Church had Elders, u'ithout whofe
* Councel nothing was done in the Church. Which by what ne-
* gligenceit isfall'ninto Difuetude, I know not, ifit be not through
* the Sloath or rather Pride of the Dolors, whilft they
' alone will feem to be fomething. Thus he. I think it is tolerably
clear from this Teftiraony that there were fuch Elder s'mtht Church
at firft : For it is not poffible Hilary could underftand either B/-
fjo^s or preaching Presbyters by them, feeing thefe ftill continued in
the Church. And I think it is as clear, that their being difufed
was owing to the Prelatick Spirit of Ambition, which has been the
Mother of fo many Mifchiefs to the Church. 'Tis therefore no
wonder that we don't find the Names of the Ruling-Elders in the
A^s of the General or Provincial Councils, v^htn the Do5lors were of
fuch an ufurping Temper. And perhaps that is the Reafon why there
are fo very few Councils that had a good Iflue, or of whom we have
a comfortable Account. Even the Fathers of the firft Council ofNic^
were in Peril of throwing their Bibles at one anothers Heads, had not
Conjlantine wifely moderated their Choller, and charitably burned
their fcandalous Libels againft one another . Mr. Rhind indeed p. 2 1 8
taxes the Presbyterians that they dubbed here a Godly Webjter^ there a.
^anCiifed
[a ] Nam apudomnes utique Genres honorabilis eft Seueauj, uiide & Synagoga & poftea Ecdefia Se-
siorcs liibuit, quorum fine Confilio nihil agebacur in Ecclefi.-i. Qiiod, qua negligentia abfolcveric, nefcio,
•ifiiorccDodlorum defidia auc raagis Aiperbia, dum foli voluiic ahcjuid videii Commcnt'iai Tim. j. x.
SedJ. VI. Presbyterian Government. 183'
Sufj^ijied Cooler Ruling Elders, But I cannot fee why either the Web^
fler or the Cohler might not be as ufefull Members in a Council as
7W4/yofthe Bifhops. For, we have uncontefted Evidences Qf) that'
many of them could not read or write their own Name. Mr.
K/;/W ought to have been aware how he inferred that the Rulings
Elders are no Church Officers, beeaufe they were not prefent at Co»n~
ci/sj nor their Names recorded in the J^s of them: For, if that
Argument be good, it will prove that even the Epifcopal Presbyters
are not Church Officers; BelUrmin having fhewn ( f )at great
length, that Prelates alone have Power to Sit and Vote in Councils,
However, this is enough for the Vresbyterian Pradice, that in thefirjt
and befl Council that ever was, I mean that Sit Jerufalem A^sXV,
both the JpoBles^nd Elders^ yea and thQ whole Churcb v, 22. were '
Members ; and the J^s and Decrees thereof paffed, not only by their
Advice, bat with their Suffrage.
Thus now we have feen that the Ruling-Elders slvq oT Divine In-
(fitution, that they obtained in the Primitive Church, that they fell
into Defuetude through the Pride of the Bifhops; and that in the beft
conftituted Churches in the World, they were revived again upon
thefirft Dawning of the Reformation.
And indeed the Wifdomof our Lordand his care of his Church
is very much feen in the Inftitution. For, as he has appointed M/-
fjifiersj th^t the Faiih of the Church may be kept found ; and Dea'
cons that the wants of her poor Members might be fupplied : So he
has appointed Ruling- Elders to overfee the Manners and outward
Converfation of Chriftians, tha! they be fuch as become theGofpel.
Befides, by this Conftitution the Difcipline is the more willingly
fubmitted to by the People, being exerced by Perfons chofen from
among themfelves, appointed to reprefent them, to take care of their
Intereit, and that they may have no Reafon to complain of the Ri- -
gour or Severity of the Minifters. Toilluftrate this a little from the
Con-'
(h ) Hefius Epifcopus Hadrianopolicanus definiens fubfcripfi per Romanum Epifcopnm Myronura, fo 9«oi
rttfdumLiteras.^ Cajumiis Epifcopus Phasnicenfis definiens fubfcripfi per Coepifcopum meum Dionylium,
proptcvez quodLiicrus igtio/em, ConciL Ephcf. z. in iJcK I. Cbalccd Cone, in C rub. Tom. I. p. 830. Cone.
Ephef I. Pacncius Presbyter de vico Paradioxilo, manu urens Maxani Coinpresbyteri, ob hoc, <^uod H-
teeas igno/j.icm. ■ T^eaoa Chorepifcopus — — manum. accomodavi pro eo ego Flavius Palladius, ob ho.c
quod prcfens dixerit Literasfc i^no/are. in ^Act. i. Co».' Chalccd. in Crab. p. 816. vide plma »pud C-w-V '
fun. Dik. coacemog f^iturgies ^ . . i^(>» [cj pe CoucU.Ub. i. Cafi.i/*.-
184 Defence of the Chap, //.
Conftitution of the Civil Government. Princes ordinarly live in
State, fee Nothing but Coaches and Six, fine Rooms and full Tables;
por does any Body appear before 'em but in his Sunday's Cloaths.
AH this is very necelTary and reafonable ; yet it leaves Them very
much unacquainted with the Condition of the Country; nor can
They have other than a very faint Senfe of the PrefTures and Ca-
lamities Their People may be groaning under : And were the Le-
giflature folely in Their hands, They couM hardly efcape being
blamed for every Thing the People might think a Grievance. But
now w hen a Parliament meets once a Year, the Prince gets the
Condition of the People in themoft remote Corners of the King-
dom reprefented: And the People cannot but be fatisfied, when they
confider they are governed by no other Laws, nor burden'd with
other Taxes, than what were asked and enad^ed with their own
Confent; or, which is the fame Thing, by Reprefentatives of
their own chufing. Juft fo, Minifters, through their retired
Courfe of Life, are ordinarly very much Strangers to the Way
of the World, and are ready to meafure the World by the
Abftra£l Notions they have gathered out of Books or from their
own Solitary Mufings, which don't always fuit with the Pra8i-
cal Part of Life. Hence it comes to pafs that, till Age and
Experience have mellowed 'em, they are apt to have too
much Keenefs on their Spirits, and to exprefs too much Ri-
gour in their AQings. But Ruli?jg- Elders are more converfant
in the World, know better what the Times will bear, and what
Allowances are neceffary to be made in this or that Cafe. Now
when the People (in the Cafe of Scandals; fee themfelves judged
by fuch Ferfons, and that there is no other Difcipline exercifed
on 'em but what even their own Neighbours, as well as their
Minirters,thinkreafonabIe,tbey can have no juftCaufeof Complaint.
To conclude. It is very Strange that the Epifcopal Writers
Ihou'd inveigh againft Officers whofe Province it is only to Go-
'verfjj not to Preach, I mean by themfelves, feeing they have
loudly proclaimed to the Worlds that they look upon their Bi-
Ihops only as fuch. Thus, Dr. ^outh (^) in his Sermon preach-
ed
[ d J Vol. I. P. aej?. &c.
Sed, VL Presbyterian Government. 185
ed at the Confecration of the Bifliop of RocheHer upon Titus II.
verfe ult. Thefe things fpeak and exhort^ in a flat Contradidion to
the Text faies, * That a teaching Talent is not abfolutly m-
* ce^Aty in a Bifiop, nor is of the 'vital Conjiitution of his Function,
* If he have it, it is not to be refufed ; but if he have it not, it
* is not much to be defired. And if any of their Bifhops do make
Confcience of conflant preaching, as fome of them have done, it is
reckoned a Labour of Love, as not having a Care of Souls. Thus
the Bifihop of Sarum in his Funeral Sermon on Dr. Tillotfon the
late Arch-Bifliop of Canterbury, ' In his FunQion, faith H?, He
*• was a conilant Preacher: For tho' he had no care of Souls u^ion
' him, yet few that had laboured fo painfully as he did. And
yet the Arch-Bifhops and Bifhops have, above all the other Clergy,
.the greateft Honour and the largeft Provifion. I wonder upon what
Account, if it be none of their Duty to labour in the Word and Do-
Urine, And I wonder how Epifcopal Ruling- Elders can be lawfull,
and Fr^i^j^fm/^ Ruling-Elders not fo. But enough of this.
ARTICLE II.
Wherein Mr. Khind's Reafoning^ againjlthe Vre-*
sbyterian Deacons are Examined.
P. 106.107,
I. TJE Obje^s that the Primitive Deacons did Preach and Bap-
JL X ^^^^y ^^^^h the Presbyterian Deacons cannot do, therefore
they are not the fame. 'Tis anfwered. The Scripture Deacons by vir-
tue of their Office were neither to preach nor Baptize, but to ferve
Tables: For the Apoftles unloaded themfelves of the latter Fuoi^ion,
A a becaufe
iS6 Defence of the Chap^ 11,
becaufe they could not, with it, difcharge the former A^s VI. 2
It is not rea[on that we {hould leave the Word of God and ferve Tables,
But, faies Mr. R7;/W, Philif who was ordain'd a Deacon JSls Wl.
did 'Preich af2d Baptize J5ls VIII. 12. 1 3. 'Tis anfwered. ift, We
have heard Hilary before declaring, that it was allowed to all in
the Beginning to preach the Gofpel and to Baptize. 2ly, Philip
was an Evangeltjl, and in that Capacity preached and Baptized.
But faies Mi". Rhind^ werendof m fecofjdOrdination He had for thefe
Purpofes. Is not this pretty? Is he not exprefly called 2in Evafi-
gelisi Acls^^l, 8. And (hall we think he took up the Office at his
own Hand, without being ordain'd to it ; becaufe we do not
read of his Ordination ? Or dees he think that Evangelifts had not
Tower to Baptize? But, adds he, * we find Peter and Johti com-
' milTioned by the Jpoftles to conBvmthQ Samaritans, which Office
^ Philip cou'd have difcharged had he been an Evangelift, Ianfwer»
He could not: For the Confirmation that is there meant is the
giving of the Holy Ghoft in his extraordinary Charifmata, as is e>-
vident from the whole Hiftory : And this none but the Apoftles
could give ; nor is there one Inftance, either in the Scripture or
Church Hiftory, where ever any but the Apoftles either did or
could give ir. But Mr. Rhind has ftrongly imagined that the pre-
fent Ufage among the PreUtisis is according to the New Tefta-
menr Practice ; whereas indeed Epifcopal Corfrwation is a thing
unheard of in the Scripture, and fois 2i baptizing Deacon. Nor can
I look upon Baptifm adminiflred by an Epi/copal Deacon, any-
otherwifs than as if it had been adminiftred by a WebflermCobkr
Ruling Elder or Deacon among the Presbyterians. Fm fmx there
is not the leaft Countenance for it in the Scripture. I'm fure the
very Defign of the Deacon's Office declares that Baptizing is no
part of it. I'm fure liliewife the Presbyterian Deacon is the only
Deacon by Scripture warrant, when the word is taken as fignify-
ing an Officer inferior to a Presbyter.
II. He objects ' That the ancient Deacons did conftitute one
^ of the Ordinary and perpetual Orders of Ecclefia flicks, whereas
'the Presbyterian Deacons are only inafew of the larger Towns,
* ^ there being ^^iJ/z^fuch in any other Partofthe Nation^ 'Tisan-
fweced.. They arein.ew^^ Congregation where they can be had.-
Aad.1
Sed. VL Presbyterian Government. 187
And to my certain Knowledge in thqVie/<?/' gs well as /^^^gr Towns;
yea in many Country Congregations. And every Minilter ispofed
upon it by the Presbytry twice aYear,wlKther his Seflion beconfti-
tute with Deacons as well as Elders. Poffibiyfome Congregations
may have little or no Stock; and perhaps as few Poor that want
it. What is the great Hazard tho', in fuch a Cafe, they have no
Deacons? O, faith Mr. Rh'md^ h''s a. fufdamentd Defeoi if they believe
them to be of Divine Inftitution, Very well argued 1 As \i Deaco^is.
were abfolutly necelTary totheConftitiuion of aChurch. But Time
was when there were no fuch Officers in Being, nor any Order for
them: Nor in all probability would there ever have been any^
had not the emergent Circumftances of the Church made it necef-"
fary. How many Inftances have we in Church Hiftory o^ Bijhops
without Presbjiers'^ But was that a fundamental Defeat ? Orwou'd
it be fufficient whereupon to infer, that Presbyters are not Church
Officers ; or that the Office is not of Divine Inftitution ? 'Tis Nau-
feous toanfwer fuch Stuff. So much for the Presbyterian Deacons.
The Conclujion of the Chaj^ter concerning Cfhavch-
Government.
THUS now I have got through the Controverfy of the Govern'
ment of the Church ; and hope I have made itfufficient-
ly clear that, neither from the Nature of the Thing, nor the Form
of Government among the jf^iw, nor Political Neceffity, nor the
Inftitution of our Lord, nor the Pra£lice of the Apoftles, nor the
pretended Epifcopacy of Timothy and Titus, nov the Apocalyptick
Angels, nor the Teftimony of Antiquity, nor indeed from any Thing
elfe Mr. Rhind has advanced, does it appear that by Divine Right
there is ^ or ought to be any Officer in the Church fuperiour to the
preaching Presbyter. Confequently the Presbyterian Government
4 a 2 is
i88 Defence of the Chap* II
is not Schifmatical, but that which was originally inftituted, and
did at firft obtain. Confequently Mr. Rhind in feparating froni>
it ( the fame is to be faid of all others in his Cafe J is become a 5f>&//-
matick. Confequently Epifcopal Ordination is fofar from being ne*
ceffary, that it is without, and therefore contrary to Divim Infti-
tution.
And now to conclude. I cannot but look upon it as one of the
niceft Turns I ever heard was given to a Caufe, that our Scotch E-
pifcopalians who, the other Day while they were in Pofleflion, were
glad to find a few Colours, and watery ones they were God wot, to
prove Epifcopacy Lawfa/l-, and would have been heartily well con-
tent if People would have acquiefced in it as T^/?r4^/f ; that they, I
fay, fhould, now when they had loft all, fet up for the Abiolute A^^-
ceffltyoi it, and hope to recover the Sadie by that Politick j I cannot'
help faying in the Words of Catullus
Res eft RedicuU & nimis Jocofai
^T'ls much fuchan other Trick as the Church of RtJwe ferves the-
Proteftants: When fbe finds her Religion almoft one continued
Scab of Errours and Corruptions, fhe puts on a brazen Impudence,
and will needs have them to difpureher Infallibility. I muft then
advife our Epifcopal Writers to be fo modeftas not to grafpatall •,
but to content themfelves, as their Fathers did before them, with
Eilays to prove the Larvfullmfs of Epifcopacy, without infifting oa^
the NeceffityoVit, And as for others, befides the Clergy, who are-
become Difciples to this new Hyf^othefa, I cannot but ferioufly ex-
hort them to confider the horrid Uncharitablenefs and bloody Cru-
elty of it, no where to be parallelled except amongft the mod i
bigotted Papifls, I crave leave then to addrefsyouin a few Words.
I hope> Gentlemen^ you know that there ace other Churches in
the World beCdes tlie Presby terians in 6V0//W, which neither be?
lieve the NeceflTity of Bifhops, nor maintain Union with them...
There are.our Brethren DifTeniers in Engla»d and Ireland, a pretty-
confiderable Body. There was the Fr^/?c/; reformed Church while.
Ihe. flood, and. what yet remains of Her in a difperfed Condition...
Jll^ie are the Btlgick. Churches, ^tha. CJburch oiQemva^ the Rcfor-
Enedi
Sed VI^ Vrcshyterhn Governmenu 189
med C4»/o»i with their Proteftant Confederates*, and NervE?fgla»d
on the other Side of the World, all which own no fuch Office as
that of a Diocefan Bifhop. Now, pray Gentlemen^ do ye think it
Nothing to unchurch all thefe; and, which is the neceffary Con-
fequence of that, to give them to the Devil; when yet all the
World fees that, generally fpeaking, their Converfation is at leaft
as good and as becoming the Gofpel as your own ? Do ye think
it nothing, by your bigotted Notions thus to weaken the Proteftant
Interell, and to make fuch a dangerous Gonceflion to the Papifts,
that fo fair a Part of the Proteftant World is in a State of Schifm,
out of Favour with God, and incapable of Salvation : And all this
meerly for the want ol Prelates, of whom there is not the leaft
Mention in Scripture ?
And yet the malign Influence of your Principle does not fift
within thefe Bounds I have mention'd. No. All the Churches
who have only Superintendents 2iVQ in quite as dangerous a Condi-
tion as the former. For, befides that thefe Superintendents pofi-
tively difown their Superiority over their Brethren to be by DU
"Jine Right ; we have p. 45 h^ard M. Daiiwtll declaring, that they
are not fufficient for a Principle of Unity, and confequently can-
not be the Medium of Union with Chrift. Now, pray confider what
a Havock this muft needs make of the remaining Proteftant
Churches. Left you ihould think me partial in giving the Detail
of'em, take it in S//7%/t^^/'s Words. ' In Holjiein, faith he r 0>
'^Pomeren^ M^clenbur^^ Brunstvick, Lunenburg, Bremen, Oldenburg,
* Eaft ¥riefland,Hejfen, Saxony, and all the upper Part of Germany^
* and the "Proteftant Imperial Cities, Church-Govemment is in the
' R^^^Asoi Superintendents, In the Palatinate they have Injpectors
* and Pr^/>(?////f, over'' which is the Ecclefiaftical Confiftory...-- And
' fo they have their- Fr^/'ci/J/fjj in Wetter aw, Hejfen and Anhalt.
* And mTranfyhania, Pohnia'and Bohemia\.\\Qf have their Seniores.
'■ All thefe, he 4^'^i, acknowledge no fuch Thing as a Divine Righf
* of Epifcopacy, but ftiffiy maintain jf^yo«»'s Opinion of the Pnmi-
* tive Equality of Gofpel. Minifters. And therefore they muft all
go -over at the fame Ferry with plain Parity Men •, and you know
you
£ e ] Irenic p. i,\i.
ipo Defence of the Chap.//.
you have afligned tlieiii but indifferent Quarters again ft their
Landing.
Yet iutther, even in Denwark^ Norway and Sweden, tho'there are a
few that have the N^tme of Bifliops ; yet they are very far from being
looked on as the Center of Union, or myftical High Priefts,orthe
vifiblereprefentatives of God and Chrift, by whom alone People can
IiayeUnon with the Divine Perfons, which is your Scheme. No,
Thcyhu'eno iuchWhimfies among them on the contrary Writers
fpeak moft diminutivly of their Power. ' Her e , viz. in De^M ark
* (faith the Author of tliQ prefect Si ate of Euyo^q for thQ Year 1705
' p. 154) are Bi/Z?i'/';, but they are not much different in Effeclfrom
^ Snperif?terider4s in other Places, depe^difjg on the Super iour Qonfi'
' ftory, * And (faith the excellent Author of the Account of Denmark
* for the Year 1692, Third Edit. p. 231. ) there are Six Superin-
* tendents in Denmark^ who take it very kindly to be called Bi*
* fljops and My Lord, There are alfofourin Norwaj, Thefe have
* no Temporalities, keep no Ecclefiaftical Courts, have no Ca-
' thedrals, with Prebends, Canons, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, 8fc.
* But are only Primi inter Pares, Thus he. And 'tis certain, that
in the Beginning of the Reformation it was Bugenhagius (who was but
a Presbyter; that ordain'd their ^vH fewn Superintendents or Bi-
fliops from whom all their SucceiTion to this Day does flow (/;.
The fame is the Cafe of Sweden. ' The Archbifliops and Bifhops
* of this Kingdom (faith the forecited Author o[thQ Pre/ent State of
* Europe p. 147 ) retain little more than the Name, and a bare
* Primary fort of Superiorityover other Superintendents, the eftabli-
* filing of the Lutheran Religion having deprived them of the Eccie-
* fiaftical JurifdiCtion, which they exercifed before the Reforma-
* tion. I'hus he. And to the fame Purpofe StiUing^vet (^^) concern-
ing both thefe Kingdoms. ' in Swedeny faith he, t\\QYQ is one Arch-
' bifhop and Seven Bifhops, and fo in Denmark, though not with
* Jo great Authority.
By this Calculation, the. whole forreign Reformed' Churches
will be found to be of Presbyterian Principles, and confequently
not
I f ] vide Ckytrsum Sixon p. 4.3^.
{gj lienic. Hbi fu^ia.
Scd:. VL Presbyterian Government. 191
not a true Church among 'em all by your Scheme. You'll per-
haps fay that as for Sweden and Denmark 'tis enough to fave 'em
from the Guilt of Schifm, that they havefuch as are called Bijjjops,
how fmall foever their Authority be, and iho' the Divine Infti-
tution or Necefjiiy of them is not believed. But, pray GentUmen^
confider, if their Practice fave them from the Guilt of Schifw^ does
not their R^//>/ involve them in the Guilt of Htrefie'^ If Union
with the BiOiop be by Divine Command a neceiTary Duty, then
certainly the Belief of it is a fundamental Article, and confequently
the denying thereof, as all thofe of the La//^^^-^^ Communion do,
muft be Hcrejie. And fo you have very charitably difpofed of all
the Proteflant Churches, fending them wholesale to Hell upon the
Account either of Herefie or Schifm,
I forefee vi^hat Reply you'll make to all this,viz.that the Vnchari.
tahknefs of a Doclrine is no Argument againft the Truth of it. That
our Thoughts don't alter the Nature of Things, nor can change
Divine Eftablifhments: And therefore if it be true that Epifcopal
Ordination is neceiTary to make a Minifter, without which his Ads •
are not valid ; and that Union with the Bifhop is neceiTary to e--
ternal Life, without which People cannot expetl it: Be the Con-
fequencesof this never fo heavy, or extend themfelves to never {o '
many, that is what you cannot help; The Truth muft be main-
tain'd ; and that you exprefs your Charity fufficiently by telling us^
of our Danger, and that it would be the moll uncharitable thing
in the- W-orld to conceal the fa me from us,or to file wit lefs than really
it is. To v<,'hichlanfwer. 'Tis very true,ourThcughts don't alter the
Nature of ThingSjnor will your Rigour or our Charity make the o-
thet's Principles either truer orfalfer.But tho' it do not make, yet it'
may go a great length to Jheiv whether they be tree or falfc. • For,
'tis a fhrewd Prefumption in moft Cafes, that the Opinion which
wants Charity is not from God, and that the Errour lyes on the
Damning Side^ . This the Divines of the Church q^ England have
oftimes obferved in their Difputes againft the Church of Roy?^e',
But their late Writers for Epijcopacj quite forget it in dealing with
the Presbyterians,' . A good and wife iMan, even tho' he iiave the
Truth on his Side, will yet make all the Allowances the Cafe will i
rcafonably bear: for;thofe4hat>diffiic from:' him. . He-will confider
that:
192 Defence of the Cbap. //.
that their diffenting from bim may proceed from Education, the
Difficulty of the Controverfie, the want of due Helps orof a fuit-
able Genius and Capacity. And if he himfelf make Allowances
for them on thefe or the like Accounts; He will readily believe
that a mercifull God will do fo much more. But whe-n a Man's
Mind is darkned with Errour, at the fame Time his Temper is
fowred : And becaufe he cannot Rea/off others into the fame
Opinion with himfelf, therefore he ^{{^ysto fright them into it with
the Argument of Damnation. And this, GentlemetJ^ I muft take
the Freedom to fay, I apprehend to be your Cafe. For, Fray,
whence all this Height? On what is all this Affuming in your
own Cafe founded ? Mr. Rhwd^ to give him his due, has laid out
all your beft Arguments in their Strength, and fet them off with A.
bundance of Elegancy; I appeal to your felves whether every one
of them is not anfwered to Satisfaction.
I. Is it on the Scrip ures you found? M. Do^jv^// has fairly quit-
ted that Fort, and frankly owns that your Prelacy is not to be found
there : And that the Original of it is at leaft ten Years Pofterior
to the Sealing of the Canon of the Scripture, and half a Dozen
years to the Death of JofmthQ longeft lived of the Apoftles. And
as to the Bufinefs of Ordination which you fo much infift on. He
not only fuppofes (/;) that Preshyters might chufe their Bififfp,
might uie all the Ceremonies of Confecratton to him, might invert:
him in his Office by Prajer znd Iwpojition of Hands: But alfo tells,
' that he is apt to think that this w/// have been the Way obfer-
' ved at firft in the making of Bijhops, Now, if the Presbyters
have Power of Ordaining Bijhops, is it not ftrange that they
fhould want the Power of Ordaining Presbyters like themfelves?
Has God any where forbidden it? No. But Mr. D<?^)W/ would
perfwade us of it by a Simile^ which yet is but a weak way of
arguing, 'viz. That as though a Prince is inaugurated by his Sub-
jects, yet when once he is inaugurated, they have not any Power
over him, nor can ad any thing without him, or withdraw their
Obedience froni him, fo neither can the Presbyters, when once
they haveOrdain'd a Biflhop over themfelves, do any Thing either
without him or in Oppofition to him ; and that all luch ACts are not
only
[ li ] Separ*:. of Churches, Chap. XXIV. p. jii.
&(3:. VL Presbyterian Government, "193
only punifhable but invalid. But all this Reafoning is founded on two
moll precarious Suppofitions viz, i/l, That the Presbyters are
obliged to havea Bifliopovcrthem. And 2^/^, That every Bifliop
is a Monarch in his own Diocefs, for which there is juft as much
tQ be faid as there is for the Fremh King's being Univerfal
Monarch of the World, or the Pope of the Catholick Church.
Such Things ought to be proved not prefumed ; fo much the rather
that inFaO: we find the Presbyters of the Church of EngUnd^ e-
ven the High-Church Presbyters, have difowned that Principle.
For, in the late famous Contefts between the two Houfes of Co/^x;^-
cation^ the Plurality in the lower Houie aflumed to themfelves a
Power over, and fet themfelves in oppofition to their Superiours:
And would needs have their Metropolitan an^ Bffh/fps to be account-
able to them for their Conduct in their Vifitations, they wou'd needs
cenfure the Bifhop of SarurrPs Book on the XXXIX Articles: Nay
wou'd need's fit, and a£l too, after the Metropolitan their Prefident
had adjourned them. By this Conduct of theirs they broke through
the Jgnatian and Dodwellian Scheme at once, and loudly proclaimed
to the World that they did not believe their Bifhops tobeabfolute
Monarchs. Thus the Presbyterians were beholden to the lower
Houfe of Convocation, But indeed the upper Houfe obliged them
no lefs. For, the lower Houfe, apprifed of the ConftruQions were
made of their Adings, on Dec, ii. 1702 fent a Declaration to thQ
upper Houfe whereof the Import was. That whereas they had been
Jcandaloujly and Malic ioujly reprefented as Favourers of Freshytry, in Op'
pofttion to Eptfcopacy^ they now declared^ That they acknowledged the
Order of BijJjopSy to be of Divine JpoHolical Injlitution. Several of the
lower Houfe had dilTented from this Declaration^ and refufed to
fubfcribe it. But did not their Lordfljips in the upper Houfe go in
to it ? No. Notwithftanding the lower Houfe by an additional
Addrefs begged their Lordfljips to abett and fupport the forefaid
Do^rine, yet their Lordfljips objeQed againft the Legality ofaffert-
ing it, and in end flatly refufed it. So that, even in England it felf,
to this Day there has never been any Declaration made of the D/-
'z^/»^ Inftitution oi Prelacy either by Parliament ox Convocation: Kon
can I find that there is any Thing in any of their publick f^rw*-
i/Cs aflertifls it, except fome Words in the Preface to the Form of
B b Ordi-
194 Defence of the Chapv/Z
Ordination, \yhichare too loofe and weak to bear {uch a WeigHe;
And 'tiscertairTy that, at theRefoimation, F?^t'%wasfet upin£/?^-
Und on a far di.^erent Footing from that of Divim Right, For
in K. Henry the Vlirs Reign Anno 15^9. ' The Bifhops, faith Dr.
* Burmt (/), took out Commiffions froni the King, by which they
* acknowledged that all JurifdiOion Civil and Ecclefia ft ical flowed
' from the King, and that they exercifed it only at the King^s
' Courtefie, and that as they had it of his Bounty, fo they wou'dbe
' ready to deliver it up at his Pleafure, and therefore the King did
' empower them />H7yi/^^^toOrdain,giveInftitution,anddo all the
* other Parts of the Epifcopal Funflion. Upon which the Htfio'
Yun makes this Remark, Bj this they were made the Kjng^s B/Jbops
indeed.
Nor was the Matter mended by K. Edward VI. * In the firft
* Year of whofe Reign, fajs the fame Hifiorian ( k)^ all that held
* Offices were required to come and renew their Commiflionsi
* Among the reft the Bifhops came, and took out fuch Commiffions
' as were granted in the former Reign viz, to hold their Bifhop^
* ricks during pleafure, and were empowred in the King's Name,
^ as His Delegates, to ^Qdovm all the Parts of the Epifcopal Fun-
* Oion, and Qr&nmer fet an Example to the reft in taking out one
* of them. And indeed Heyltn acknowledges (/) that K. Ed*
ward's firft P arliament forced the Epifcopal Order from their flrong
Hold of Divine Injlitution, and made them no other thm the Kjn^s
Minivers only.
Upon this Footing was Prelacy fettled even in England at the
Reformation." And I challenge any Man to produce Documents
where ever to this Day they have bettered its Foundation, or fet^
tied it upon Scripture Authority or Divine Inftitution. And muft
the 6V(?;i Presbyterians bQ Schtfrnaticks hv nor believing what the -
whole Forrcign Proteftant Churches have declared againft, and
England her felf durft never afferr. Gentlemen^ can allure you there
is Nothing in the World makes a Party appear with a more
Contemptible Figure than weak: Arguments and a high Air. Pleafe
there-
fi] Hift. Refoim.Abridg.Vei. I. p. 21S.
\^ "li J Uljiiupra. Vol. II. p. +. . £l] Hift. Uvf. VI. p. /i,
Sed, Vh Prcshyterhn Government. 19^5^
therefore only tolow'r your Air in proportion to your Arguments,
and I hope it will be no hard Matter to deal with you. 'Tis
true your late Writers will needs perfvvade you that all Chriftia-
nity depends on Prelacy, and that there cannot be any Church
where it obtains not ; and their Plot, viz. The Ruin of the whole
Proteftant Intereft through the World, is too evident either to be
miftaken by us, or coloured by themfelves. But I muft tell you
that Cranmer^ Ther/ehy, Redman , Cox, Whitg'iftj Cofins, Lorv, Bridges,
Hooker, Dounhatn^ Willet, Mafon^ Chillingworth^Sutclife^ andallthofe
great Names who, for feveral Scores of Years after the Reformation,
baffled Popery by their Arguments, or gave Teftimony againft
it by their Blood ; tho' they were deeply engaged in the Interefts
of Prelacy, and loved it with their Soul; yet they ftill either de-
nyed the JSfeceffity of it, or frankly difownedits being founded on
Scripture, And when the Scripture Fort is forfaken, pray what
will ye betake your felvesto. For
II. Will you found on the Fathers? 'Tis true your Writers a-
mufe you with their Names, and dazle your Eyes with Citations
..out of 'em which mention Bifbop and Presbyter as diftinQ. Bur,
pray defire thenti-to cite the Fathers declaring for the Divine Right
of that Diftindion, as the Presbyterians cite them declaring for
their Scripture Identity. Without this, all their Endeavours are on-
ly a Learn'd Labour to buble the World, and does either dif-
cover their own, or prefume their Readers want of Judgment.
Stillingfleet has fpoken ingenuoufly on the Head. ' As to the Mat-
* ter it felf, faith he ( m\ I believe upon the ftridefl Enquiry
^ Medina*s Judgment will prove true ; That Jerom, Jujiin, Am-
* brofe^ Sedulius^ Frimaftus, Qhry]o(iom^ Theodoret, Tbeophylact^VJQKQ
*" all of Aerius'*s Judgment as to the Identity of both Name and Or-
* der of Bifhops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church. I have
(hewn how, not only thefe but feveral others of the Fathers diX^oa
the Presbyterian Side ; and acknowledge not only that the Names
Bifljo^ and Presbyter are Common ; but alfo that the Office and
Charader was the fame in the Apoftolick Times. I have produced
them interpreting the Scriptures that relate to this Controverfy, as
i!2sH(j B b 2 the
.V2iV
£ m J Iteaic, p, 27^.
t^S Defence oftb-e Chap. ///.
tbe Freshjterians now do. I have fhewn that the Divines of the
Church of England^ even her Bi/bops and Dolors acknowledge the
Fathers to be one the Side of Presbytry, If the Epifcopd Writers
can produce as many of the Fathers declaring as exprefly for the.
Superiority of Bifhops above Presbyters by Divwe Right ; if they
can find them interpreting the Scriptures that Way, and then back
all with the Approbation of our Presbperian Writers, as I have,
done whati alledged with the Approbation of the Epifcopd-, I here-
by engage to become their Profelyt. If this is not to be done, .
you muft blame your felves you have not moe Difciples. But,
'iis high Time to proceed with Mr, Rhind. .
C H A P. in
Wherein Mr, Rhind^j^ Second Reafon for feferat-^
ing from the Presbyterian P^rryvz;/^. ThaC'
their Articles of Faith are fundamentalJy Falfe
and PerniciQus^ is Examined. FromF^ 1 1^^
to P. 148.
THIS is a very high Charge, and for making it Good He -
infifts againft the E)o£lrine of thQ Decrees in general ; the •:
Decrees of PredeHinAtion and Reprobation in particular, ^
the Do£lrine of the EfficMj of Grace, and the Doctrine of i
the Pe'rfeverame of the Saints, For Anfwer, I {h^WfrH particular- -
ly confider his Objeclions againfi: thefe Dodlrines, and Secondly prove ■
that.they ,are ^hevDo^krines of the whole CkffimChutch:
' ~ ■ S--FXT..
Sed. I Presbyterian Faith ip7
SEC T. I.
Wherein Mr R hind^/ OhjeBions againjl the Fre\
shyterian Articles of Faith^ are conjjdered.
IN the F/rfi? Place Mr. RhM infifts agalnft the Do£lrine of the
. Eternal Decrees in General, which in i\iQ WeFiminder LelTer
Catechifm are defined to be Go^V eternal Yur^
pofe, according to the Counfel of His own Will; Of the Divine De-*
ivherel?j,for his own Ghry^ He hath foreordained crees in General.
whatjoever comes to pafs. One wou'd think the
Truth of fuch a Dodrine was beyond Debate. For, doth not the
Infinite PerfeQion of the Divine Nature, and the Dependence of
the Creature upon God, in its Anions 2^s well as Beings argue fuch
Decrees? Does not the infallible Omnifcience of God neceifarly in-
ferr them? Is it poffible other wife to conceive how Events, that
flow from Rational free*Agents, or depend uponContingentCaufes,
Jhou'd be certainly known, when they are not certainly to bt ? Does
Mr. Khind think that God has for fa ken the Earth, or laid the Reins
on the Neck of the Creatures, allowing them to hurry both them-
felvesand him whither they lift? Has he formed his Notions of
the Deity upon Lucretiush Syltem, who would Complement him
out of- his Concernment for the -World
Immortali avo fumma cum Pace fruatur ^
Semota a nofiris Rebus fejun^dcj^ue longe, ■
Of doth he think Him fuch a one as himfelf, to take His Mea fores
198 Defence of the Chap, 11/
wpon the Spot as he fees Things are likely to frame? In the Con-
fidence of what did he oppofe fuch a Doctrine?
Why, faith He p. 120, Nothing comes to pafs more frequently
than Sin: And therefore if God has foreordained whatfoever comes
to pafs, then it will follow that God has ordain'd Sin, and confe-
quently muft be the Author of Sin, which is Blafphemous, and de-
ftroys the Eifential Diftin^ion 'cwixt good and evil, all Juft No-
tions of God, the Natural Freedom of Man's Will, takes away Re-
wards and Punifhments, and in a Word excufes the Sinner and
lays the Blame upon God. This is the full Sum of what he has
offered againft the VresbytertAn DoQrine of the Decrees, But
I. Thefe are not Arguments againft, but Confequences wrung from
it; Confequences ioo 'w\{\c\\ihQ Presbyterians refufe with Abhorrence,
and that in their publick ¥ormtiUs, Thus in their Conjefjion of
Faith (;?) They Teach, ' That God from all Eternity did by the
* moft wife and Holy Councel of His own W^ill freely and un-
* changably Ordain whatfoever comes to pafs : Yet fo, as that
^ neither is God the Author of Sin, nor is Violence offered to the
^ Willof the Creatures, nor is the Liberty or Contingency of fecond
* Caufes taken away but rather eftabliflied. 'Tis therefore not only
uncharitable but unjuft to load the Doctrine with fuch Confequen-
ces, when they exprefly declare that they do not underfland the
Do^rine in fuch a Senfe as to admit of thefe Confequemes,
II. Cannot Mr. Rhind conceive, that 'tis very poflible for the
Divine Majefty to decree the Event, without decreeing the Sin
that adheres to it, any further than that he will permit, direct, and
overrule it, to ferve his own wife and Holy Ends? Whether he
can conceive it or not, there is no one Thing more exprefsly laid
down in the Scripture than this. I am very fare that'6'^/«z^/ fin-
ned grievoufly in curfing David, and yet I am as fure that the
Lord (aid unto him Curfe David (0). I am fure it was with
fvicked Hands thzi Herod, Fontius Pilate and the People of the J^ivi
took and crucified and flew the Son of God (/> ). But lam as fure,
not only tliat He was delivered by the determinate Councel and Fore^
knowledge of God^ but alfo that They did Nothing to him but what
God's
£ D J CLap. 111. Sea.r. £ o ] ^ Sam. XVI. lo. [ p ] A^s II. 23.
Sed:. L Presbyterkn F^ihk 199
God's Hand and Councd determined before to be done (^ j. Are the
Expreffions in the Presbyterian Catecbifm harder than thefe of the
Scripture? And rnuft not fVt/^^j.'f.^'i^^i teach as the Scriptures do,
becaufe Mr. Rhind will needs harangue a little againft them?
III. How does the Decree of God excufe the Sinner? Does not
Mr. Rhind know, that it is not the Decree but the Precept that is
given to be the Standard of our Obedience? No indeed; this
Mr. RhwdknQW nor, or did not advert to : For he hasexprefly
made the Decrees and the Commands o^ God the fame Thing ; and
tliQ Decrees to be the Rule of our Dr/rj. /f, faith he p. 121, God
has decreed Sin^ it is our Duty to commit it^ His Commands being the
Standard of our Obedience, This is a horrid Blunder he has made.
Sofar are the Decrees from being the Rule of our Duty, that it is
both impoffible to know them, and a Crime to enquire intothem
any further than as God has revealed them in his Word. Secret
Things belong unto the Lord our God: But thofe Things ivhich are re^
t'ealed belong unto us, (r) And therefore God very juftly pu ni flies •
the Sinner,not for fulfilling his Decrees in which he was not concerned ; ,
but for tranfgrelTing his P/'^^^/'/i which he had revealed to him. God de-
cree'd that the Son of Man fliould be betrayed & betrayed by fudas
too. The Son of Man goeth is it was determined (s)^ yet this Decree could
not excufe yW^/, becaufe he neither defigned the fulfilling of it by
his Treachery, nor indeed was it given him as the Rule of his Be- •
haviour: And therefore 'tis prefently added iVo unto that Man by
whom he is betrayed. And therefore 'When Mr. Rhind affirms p. 130^
' That it is Nonfenfical and Blafphemous to fuppofe that God's
^ fecret and r^w^/^^ Will are not one, He contradiQs exprefs Scri-
pture, and thereby makes himfelf guilty of that Blafphemy he im-
putes toothers.
IV. Whatever Difficulties there are in the Presbyterian Do£^rine
of the Decrees, x\\q Armimans mufi: be intolierably fanciful!, if they
do not own, that they are at leaft equal on their Side; with this
very confiderable Difference, that generally the Objections! againlt
, the '
[q ] AftsIV. 17. 28.
I r j Dcuc. XXIX. -2^ . £ s J J.uke XXM. m.
,^op Defence of the Chap. ///.
the Preshyterim Do^lrine arife from pretended Reafon: Whereas
the Objeihonsagainft xhQ ArminUn Do£lrineare founded, not only
upon plain Reafofj, but exprefs Declarations oi Scripture: And
where theCeare, and the Contefi: is 'twixt feeming Re a fo» znd the
clear Revelation of God ; it leems but good Manners to yeild to
God. Mr. Rhi»d cannot digeft this DodVine of the Decrees^b&cm(Q
he cannot f without fubmitting his Judgment to the Scriptures )by
meer Strength of Natural Reafon anfwer all the Difficulties & Objedi-
ons that may be brought againft it. But can he anfwer all the Difficul-
ties ScObjedlionsagainft a Trinity of Perfonsin the Divine Nature?
Can he anfwer all the ObjeQions that may be made againft the Re-
furre£lion of the Body after the Infinite and inconceivable Changes
which Time and Corruption bring upon it? Ifhe can anfwer thefe,
I fay, upon the meer Strength of Reafon; it muft be owned he is
the ableft Divine the World was ever yet bleffed with. If he will
not believe them, becaufe he cannot anfwer all Objedions againft
them; then 'tis plain he ought to have continued in his State of
Difcreet 6cepticifm to this Day. But if he can believe thefe Do£frines
notwithftanding his inability to folve the Difficulties that hang
on 'em ; why might he not alfo believe that God has decreed what'
ever comes to pafs ; for the one is as plainly revealed in the Scripture
as the other. And
V. There is fo much the more Reafon for this, that the Belief of
the Decrees is necelfary in order to the ConduQ of Life. For
when lam afflicted, bv the Handsof wicked MenandfuflPcr from their
Sins, how fhall I poflefs my Soul in Patience, or keep myfelffrom
Revenge ; if I don't believe that, tho' God is abfolutly irtQ of
their Sin, yet he ufes them as the Tools and Inftruments of his Pro-
vidence for ferving his Purpofes upon me, and that fuch Things
were meafured out for me by his Decree. It was upon this Confi-
deration that 'Job finned not, nor charged God foolifhly, notwith-
ftanding the Injuries the Sabeans and Cddeans had done him. It was
thispreferved Jofeph ixom all Refentment againft his Brethren for
their Barbarous Ufage ofhim, 2> thought Evil againfi Me^but God
?neant it untoGood. Gen. 50. 20. It was upon this that Da.vid quieted
his Spirir,and was Dumb not opening his Mouthy becaufe the Lord had done
it Pfalm XXXIX. 9. And what God does in Time without Sin,raight
hs
Sed. I. Presbyterian Faith. '201
he not from all Eternity decree "wvihoui Sin. It was upon this Ar-
gument that our BlefTed Saviour bore the Contradictions and Cru-
elty of Sinners with a perfect Compofure of Spirit. The Cup that wy
Father hath given me to drink (hdll not drink it. John XVIII. ii.
Nay, even a Heathen Seneca prefcribes the belief of the Doftrine
of the Decrees to his Friend as a Remedy againft all ruffling
of Spirit under Injuries and Troubles. ' luO&Sy faith he (j),
*• Wounds, Fears are come upon you ; thefe Things are ufual. That's
' little, thefe Things are needfull,they are Decreed and don't come
^ by Chance. I hope then in all this Doftrine there is nothing
either falfe or pernicious, much lefs any Thing that is Fundament
tally fo.
In the Second VUqq, Mr. jR/?/W infifts againft the Pr^j^j'^er/.
an DoQrine of Gods Irrefpe^ive Decrees relating to
Mankind contain'd in thGxv Confeffion of Faith Of the Decree of
Chap. III. viz. That God has , bj his Eternal and im- Predeflination.
mutable Purpoje & the fecret Counfel and good Plea*
fureofhisorvnWillyChofenfome toeverlapng Life, without any Foreftght
of Faith or good Works or Perfeverence in either of them. And that he
hathy bj the fame Eternal and unchangable Councel of his own Will^ paf-
fed by,andordatn'*dothers to Wrath for their Sin. ' This Doctrine, he
* argues, contradicts the Holinefs, Juftice and Truth of God, iscon-
' trary to the Defign of all Revelation, and to exprefs Teftimonies
* of Scripture, and is pernicioufly influential uponChriftian Life.
p. 122. 155. 'Tisagainft my Will that I engage inthismyfte-
rious Controverfy, in which every Man ought to be Wife to Sobri-
ety. But, I hope, it will not be difficult to fuggeft as much, as will
take offMr. K/;/Ws Objections, without going beyond my Line.
For anfwer then
L It is abundantly Strange that this Doctrine fhou'd beoppofed
by fuch as have read the Scripture and the Epiftles of Paul, who
has infifted on it at large in the Eight and Ninth Chapters of the
EpiWltto the Romans, and befides has frequently afferted it here
and therein particular Hints which MuRhind p. 132. very man-
C c nerly
tt]Dam«,Vulnera, Metusiacideruntjfokc&eri. Hoc p«um eft, debuic fieri. DeccruuDCur iilt.
accidunr^ Senec. £p. $6.
202 Defence of the Gb^p. III.
nerly calls difmemhred Shreds, as if the Apoftle had loft his Connexioa
always when he touched on that Doctrine. But what can Mr.
Rhind fay tothofemany Places of Scripture, which he cannot but
know are infifted on by the Presbyter Urn in Defence of that Do-
ctrine? Why, he has rid his Hands of 'em by onefearlefs Stroke,
boldly pronouncing, in the place juft now cited, That thefe are the
Paflages hard to be under flood pointed at by the Apoftle Pf/^r, H. Ep.
III. 1 6, which fome meU to their own Dejtrutiion, But who told him
that Ff/^r pointed at thefe Paffages? Did any Spirit reveal it to
him? Do the Church of £;?^/W Doctors teach himfo? Nofurely,
Drs Hammond and Whitbj, the two moft famous Expofitors that
have yet appeared, aflert, that it is the Doctrine of the coming of our
Lord thsit Peter there points at, and not the Doctrine ofPredeftina-
tion, or any Thing near it. And, if Mr. Rhind had confulted the
Greek Original, he had feen that Peter did not referr to Pau^^s E-
piftles, but to the Subjects he had been treating of, when heufed
thefe Words In which there are fome Things hard to bt under flood.
II. 'Tis very true the Presbyterians teach, that by the Decree of
God, for the Manifeftation of his Glory, fome Men are Predeftinated
unto Everlafting Life, and others foreordained to Everlafting Death ;
And there does indeed lye a fhrewd ObjeQion againft it viz. That -.
it is not in the Power of Man to fr event his own Damnation^ if he has been
fdreordairPd to it : But then (which might have difcouraged Mr.
Rhind to bring it into the Field again; the Apoftle jPW both forefaw
it&filencedit /^fJw.IX. 14. ^c, What /hall we fay thenl Is there Vn-
right eoufnefs with God? God forbid. For he faith to Mofes, I will have
Mercy on whom I will have Mercy ^ and I will have Comfajjion on whom
I 'will- have CowpUlon, So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth^ but of God that Jbeweth Mercy Therefore hath he
Mercy on whom he will have Mercy ^ and whom he will, he hardeneth. Thou
mlt fay then unto Me, Why doth he yet find fault ? For who hath re*
filled his Will? Nay but, 0 Man, who art thou that replyefl againft
God ? ^ Here is a full AfTertion and fair Vindication of the Presbyterian
DoQrine ; and whatever Objefl ions our Minds may raife againft
it, yet there is no one Dodrine more clearly expreffed or ftrongly
aiTerted in all the. Scripture than this. . And, which' confirms alJ,\
'£i& beygndallConiroverfy, by Obfavations from Providence^ that
Godi
Sea, 1/ Presbyterian Faith. ao J
God aQs with an Abfolute Soveraignty even in the Difpen-
fatioQs of the Means of Grace in Time, which is a
certain Document that he aQed the fame Way in His Eternal De*
crees. The World was for many Ages delivered up to Idolatry ;
and fince the Chriftian Religion has appeared, we fee vafl: TraQs
of Countries which have continued ever fince in Idolatry: O-
rhers are fallen under Mahomeumfm : And the State of Chriften^
dom is in the Eajiern Parts of it under fo much Ignorance, and the
greateft Part of the IVefi is under fo much Corruption, that We
mutt confefs the far greateft Part of Mankind has been in all Ages
left deftitute of the Means of Grace, and great Numbers of Men
are born in fuch Circumftances, that it is morally Impoffible that
they fhould not perifh in them. If God thus leaves whole Nations
in fuch Darknefs and Corruption, and freely chufes others to com-
municate the Knowledge of Himfelf to them, then We need not
Wonder that he holds the fame Method with Individuals, that he
doth with whole Bodies : For, the rejeding of whole Nations bj
the Lump for fo many Ages, is more hard to be accounted for by
us than the feleQing of a few, and the leaving others in that State
of Ignorance and Brutality *. But it becomes no Man to quarrel
with God, and impeach Him on His other Attributes, becaufe He
will exercife His Soveraignty, when we are both affured by the
facred Oracles, and fee it with our Eyes in the Courfe of
His Providence, that His Judgments are unfearchable and His Wajs
faft fnding out.
III. There lyes no Juft ObjeQion from this Doctrine againft the
Holinefs, Juftice or Sincerity of God. ¥irfi^ not againft His Holt-
mfs. He has given Men Holy Laws, he forces none to tranfgrefs
them. 'Tis true they cannot keep them without his Grace, but
is God a Debtor of that to any Man ? Who has firft given unto
Him J and it [hall (^e recommenced? Secondly y Not againft his jf/z/zV^ :
For he damns no Man but for Sin, nor does he damn one repent-
ing Sinner and fave another ; but he damns all Impenitents and
faves all Penitents without Refpeft of Perfons. 'Tis true he gives
Repentance to fome which he denys to others ; but that is an A£l;
of his Grciice, upon which his Juftice can no more be quarrelled,
C c 2 than
; See Bp. Buraei oa the XXXIX. Arc. p. i/^.
204 Defence of the Chapi 777;
than for his giving the Means of Grace to ChriHUns^ which he has
denyed to Pagans. Plainly, he created our firll: ^ Parents Perfed
and Uj^jright, he gave them a Power to ftand, he did not force them
to fall; yet he permitted them to do fo through the Freedom of
their own Will to which they were left. By their Fall their whole
Pofterity became at once Guilty and Corrupt, juft as a Leprous
Parent begets a Leprous Child, and a Rebel Father forfeits the E-
ftate, not only for him (elf, but for all his Pofterity that are, by
the meer Strength of Nature, to defeend from him, unlefstheybe
reftored by the Prince's Grace. If when God found all Mankind
in this Condition, and from all Eternity forefaw that, by his Per-
miflion, they would throw themfelves into it ; Where is the In-
juftice in chufmg fome of them as VefTels of Mercy ; and pafling
by others, leaving them to inherit the Choice which their Firff
Parents or themfelves or Both had made for them^ and then repro-
• bating them to Damnation for their Sins? Where is there any
Thing of Injuftice in all this? Nay, Is there not here a moft Glo-
rious Scene opened, wherein at once Jufticers magnified, and Mer-
cy gratified; and both Love and Reverence fecured to the Divine
Majefty ? And it is upon this Confideration that We find the Apo-
i\\^ fatisfying the Objedion which formerly we heard . him /?/f^^f<?-
ing^ What^ Gody willwg to jhew his Wrath^ anA to make his Power
k^oiv^^ endured with much Long -fuffering the Veffels of Wrath fitted to
Dejirui^ion: And that he might make known the Riches of his Glory
on the Veffels of Mercy y which he had afar e prepared unto Glory, Rom.
IX. 22. 2^. Thirdly, Not againfthis Sincerity, For, why m^y not
God rei^uire Obedience from the Eled, w hen. hia very Requiring
it is one of the Means by which he determines them to it. Why
may not h'' threaten them with Damnation in Cafe of Difobedience,
when the Tbreatningis the Mean appointed for fcarring them from
•it. Is there any Thing here but the Ufe of a moft Rational Mq^w
for compafling a moft Holy End? Is it any Objedion againft Pro-
'vidence that the Sun is fufFered to fhine and the Rain to fail oa
the Tares as well as the Wheat growing together in^ the fame Com-
mon Field, tho' the firft are to be burned, the- latter to be gathered
into the .Barn ?. As little Objedion is.it in this Cafe, that, while thp
Eled and Reprobate live naixedjtogether in thd vifible Church,
ih&.. Exhortations, ofo the.Gofpej. are direded^ .and the: Offers of
Lifci
Sei3: I^ ^ Vrtshytcmn Faiths 205
' Life and Salvation made in a general Stile. And, to call this
' DtffimuUtion and a Cruel and Difwgenuous Procedure, as Mr. Rhmd
does p. 129, when it is fb eafie to be accounted for by Reafon
even upon the Presbyterian Hjpothefts^ was the moft Prefumptu-
ous Blafphemy.
IV. The faid Preihteriart Doctrine is no way contrary to the
Defign of Revelation, nor to any one Teftimony of Scripture.
Flrfi, it is no way contrary to the Defign of Revelation : And
Mr. Rhwd\ Medium, for proving that it is, difcovers either a
moft vitious Mind, or a moft Prodigious Ignorance of the Con-
troverfy. ' According to this Doctrine/^///; He, p, 130. our Faith
'and Obedience cannot make our cafe better nor Worfe ; it be-
ting unalterably fixed by a Prior WiW, J¥itbout Regard to either.
Was it Malice or Miftake made him talk at this Rate? Does
not the Apoftle teach * that Qod has chofen us to Salvation through
San^iifciition of the Spirit and Belief of the Truth f Did ever any
Presbyterian teach otherwife? Do they ever fepatate 'twixt the
£«^ and the Means? Don't they conftantly affirm that Holinefs
and Happinefs, Sin and Mifery are linked together, as in the Na-
ture of the' Thing, fo alfo in the Decree of God ? To aflert then,
that the Doflrine of the Decrees fuppofeth God to admit tolfea-
ven, and difpatch to Hell without Rtf^eH either to Faith and O-
bedience on the one Hand, or Infidelity and Impenitence on the
other, was to bid a Defiance both to Modefty and Truth. Se-
condljylt is not contrary to any Teftimony of Scripture. Mr.
Rhind inftances two. ■ The fir ft is i Tim, II. 4. That God wou^d
have all Men to he faved. But, were that to be underftood of
God's Secret Will, pray how cou'd any Man be loft ; For who hath
refifled his Will '^. The Counceiof the Lord ftandtth fa/l^ and the Thoughts
of his Heart to all Generations f.The meaning of the Pbce then is ob-
vious ^^.z:. That we fliould pray for Kings and all that are in Au-
thority as well as for others, becaufe there is no rank or Order of
Men whole Faith and Obedience he will not accept of, and upon it
fave them at the laft ; In Token whereof he has given them his re.
. vealed W\\\ yMhich commands all Men everywhere to repeat; And 'tis
»Vitll refped to this, that he is faid to wtll diat they fliould be faved ,
and
L •^n Thoflill. 13. i t Rom. ix; 15. Tf. XXXIII. n.
ho6 Defence of the Chap, jf//
and not with refpe£i to any uncertain hovering Purpofe to be de-
termined by the Creature, which is a Thing Inconfirtent with the
Pcrfe6\ion of his Nature. The other Scripture is Mark XVI. i6.
He that hlieveth and is baptized jlj all be faved, hat he that believeth
not Jhallbe damned, * ^\\\Q\\Jaith he, plainly fuppofeth, that a Man
* may or may not believe. But this is manifeftly falfe. The De-
fign of the Text is not to (hew what Man may ov may not do, but
to exprefs the Connexion there is 'twixt Faith and Salvation , Infide-
lity and Damnation. Faith is not of the Growth of our own Na-
ture or Will,but is theEffeft ofthe Operation of the Sprit of God ; and
to deny this, as Mr. R/;/W does all along, is quite tofubvert the Gof-
pel. Tothefe two Sciptures he adds p. 131 an Argument which
is this. ^ All to whom the Gofpel is preached are obliged to be-
* lieve that Chrift is their Saviour and died for them. But none
^ can be bound to believe a Lie, therefore Chrift mod certainly
* died for all to whom the Gofpel is revealed*, and if fo, then the
' DoQrine, which afferts the Salvability only of a felectFew/isdemon-
* ftrativly falfe. But this Argument ftands on a lame Foot. All,
to whom the Gofpel is preached, are indeed obliged to believe in
the general, that Chrift died for, and is the Saviour of all that be-
lieve; and from thence, iftheyf with the joint Teftimony of God's
Spirit ) are confcious to themfelves, that they do believe with fuch
a Faith as is neceffary to Salvation ; They may confidently inferr
that Chrift died for them and is their Saviour ; but to believe that
Chrift died for me in particular, while I make no Confcience of
anfwering the Terms of the Gofpel, is to believe without both
Warrant and Evidence. The Foundation then of his Argument
being falfe, the whole Frame of it muft needs fall to the Ground.
V. I add that this Doctrine has no pernicious Influence on the
Chriftian Life, when it is improved as it ought to be. Mr. Rhind
exprefly afferts, p. 132, that it has, as running People into the moft
finfull Security^ or into the height of De/pair^ beyond the Capacity
ofsiCalvim/l Cafuift to give Check to either. But, in Oppofition
to Mr. Rhind^ I affirm with the Church of England, in her XVIL
Article^ ' That the' for Curious and Carnal Perfons, lacking the
* Spirit of Chrift, to have continually before their Eyes the Sentence
J of God's Predeftination, is a moft Dangerous Dounfall, whereby
the
Sedt. L Presbyterian Faith. ^dy
* the Devil doth thruft them either into Defperation, or into wretch-
* lefnefs of moft unclean Living, no lefs perillous than Defperation.
* Yet the Godly confideration of Predeftination and our Election in
* Chrift is foil of Sweet, Pleafant, and unfpeakable Comfort to God-
* ly Perfons, and fuch as feel in themfelves the Working of the
* Spirit of Chrift,mortifyingthe Worksof theFlefb, and their Earth-
* ly Members, and drawing up their Mind to High and Heavenly
' Things,as well, becaufe it doth greatly eftablifh and confirm their
* Faith of Eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Chrift, as be- -
* caufe it doth fervently kindle their Love towards God. Thus
far the Church of Fngtand, Befides, 'tis plain from the Nature of
the Thing, that the faid Doctrine teaches one to think meanly of
himfelf, and to afcribe the Honour of all to God : ' Which lays in '
him a deep Foundation for Humility; and that it inclines tofecrec
Prayer, and to a fixed Dependance on God ; which naturally both
brings his Mind to a good State, and fixes it in \i (^v ). And,which
con&ms all, we fee in F^^J? that thefe that believe that Doctrine,
are generally ferious and concerned about their Soul, fo that the
Goodnefs of their Heart is an Argument of the Rightnefs of their'
Head. I don't know if as much can be faid of fuch as go on the
contrary Syftem. Sure I am, they are under (hrewd Tentations to '
procraftmate the Work of their Souls: For when ihQ Scripture tells
one, that all that believe and repent (at whatTimefoever it be) '
fhall befaved; And Mr. K/?/W tells him, that he may repent and'
believe when he will, that he has it in his own Power to do fo,
without the Affiftance of any //>^^^ww(?;? Grace ; if the Man believe
both thefe ; T mean, both i^q Scriptures and Mr. Rhind\DodLnnQ\ i
I referrit to anyone to fay, whether in that Cafe, Curruption will '
not incline him to take hisSwingin Sin, in hopes that he may have
a qtiiet Hour at Death to difpatch all his Bufmefs. But enoagh^
of this.
In the Third Place, the next Presbyterian DoQrine Which'
lAv. Khind attaques is that concerning the Efficacy
of Grace.. They teach, {mhht^. i^'^, that God, to Of ihQ Efficacjn
Attain his Eternal Furpoje^ does by an irrefiliible Force of Grace,
work >
Ly 1 .Bp.Burnec 'ubifupr?. p.. i^tf.
2o8 Defence of the Ghap", 1/7/
work Grace in the Ele5fy aud at the fame Time dettys
it to the Reprobate. This is horridly Falfe : For they exprefly
difown all Force Refiftibleor Irrefiftible in the Operation otGracq;
and teach (jc), that iho' the EXtEk ^xq ejf equally drawn toGhrift,
yet it is fo, as that they come moft fteely^ being made iv/7///?g by his
Grace. And is it not very eafy to conceive how there may be £/-
fcacy^yQ3L and infuperable Efficacy too ( which the i^resbyteriam-
own in this Cafe) without the leaft Force ? Is it not plain,that the
greater Evidence there is for any Truth, and the ftronger Motives
there are to any Duty, the more Pleafurethe Soul feels, and confe-
quently the greater Freedom it exercifes, in affenting to the one, or
complying with the other? Is this to make Machines of Men?
When a Man tells me, that two and three make five, the Native
Evidence of the Propofition commands myAffent. But is there there-
foreany Fi^r^^offeredtomy Underftanding? Is it not very /'^'^/^ for
the Spirit of God tofet Home the fenfe of my Danger through fin u-
pon My Confcience fo powerfully, that I fhall be mceffarly^ tho'
without the leaft Force^ determined to fall in with the Overtures of the
Gofpel in order to my Salvation? And is it not needfull that the Spirit
of God do a£iihus;conrideringhow deeply we are immerfed in Cor-
ruption, blind to Duty, dead in Trefpafes tnd Sins ^ who cannot ^/o«r
/elves fo much as think on good Thought i And does not the fcripture a-
iTureusthat the Spirit of God does aclthus; that He works in us both to
ivi/landto do; that His People fljall be willing in the Day of His Power;
that He puts His Spirit within us^ and caufes us to walk in His Statutes?
But Mr. Rhind cannot away with this DoBrine, it is with him oppoftte
to Truthy and Deftru^ive ofChriftian Life.
Firfi, faith He p. 135. ' it is oppofice to Truth. For how can I be
* reafonably commanded to believe and repent, who am fuppofed to
* have no ftrength to do either? How cou'd Chrift reafonably bid La^
zarus^ Come forth; or the Lame M^tiyTake up thy bed and walk, when
the one was Dead, t'other an ablolute Criple f Has Mr. Rhind
with Presbytry renounced the Gofpel too ? Does he believe there
is never any fecret Efficay attends the Difpenfation thereof? Bur,
adds he, ' How can that in Propriety of Speech be called my Act,
* which was never elicited by me? Very Strong 1 Becaufe another
raifed
£ X j Conlcff. of Faith Chap. X. Scft.
Sed. /. Frcsbytcrlm Fmk 209
raifed me up, therefore my ftanding or walking is not my Act!
Becaufe, when I was lying Dead in Sin, the Spirit of God quicken-'
cd me to repent and believe; therefore, repent wg and believing^
when lam quickened, is not my A£t/ Becaufe Chrifl: draws me'
therefore it is not /that run, notwithftanding he has made werviU
ling to it / Was this to Argue?
Secondly, * It \s^ fdth kp, 136, defl;ru£\iveof Chriftian Life, in
* that it excufes the greateft Villanies under Pretence of exalting
^ the free Grace of God, and difcourages all the good Endeavours
' thatfliould be ufed. To make this good, he introduces a Cahi-
niH Teacher endeavouring ( but without PofTibility of Succcfs )
to reclaim a D^^^W;^ of the Party. Mr. iU/;?^ has aded the De»
bauchc^ furnidiing him with Arguments, formed,as he imagines, upon
the Presbyterian Hjpothefis, I fliall crave leave to a£t the Cahinisi
Teacher ; and dare promife, tho' not adually to convert the Debau-
che, that is God's Work, yet to fatisfie his Objections even by the
P^-^j^j^^r/4« Scheme of Principles. The Dialogue then ftandsthas.
Dialogue hbfween a Calvinift Teacher, and a De-
bauche of the Tarty.
CAlv, Sir, I find you ftill going on In a Courfe of Debauchery ;
I have often told you before, and now tell you once more,
that unlefs you reform you'll go to Hell.
Deb, Alas, Sir, you know, that I cannot effedually reform without
irrefiftible Grace, and I am not to blame that I am not yet Paflive
of it. p. 136.
Cah. What, Sir ! cannot you give over your Debaucheries^ your
Drinking, Curfing, Swearing, Whoreing, Gameing, without irre-
fiftible Grace? Did I ever teach you fo? Havenot I akvaystold
you, that a Man may reform thefe Vices without Special Grace ?
How can you fay, that you are not to blame that you have not yet
been Paflive of Grace? Have you ufed the Means, cultivate your
Natural Faculties, improved your Reafon ? When you have not
D d been
2IO Defence of the Chap, 77/
been faithfull in that which islefs, why fhould God commit to your
Truftthat which is more? Are not you then to blame? That
which God has already given you was fufficient whereupon to have
either prevented or broken off a Courk oi Debauchery; nay, as I
have often told you before, you might have gone, upon the meer
Strength of Nature, as far as ever a Flafo or Sefieca went.
Dth. True, Sir. But even then my beft A61ions, without this
Grace,' woa'd be but {o mzny Spkndtd Sim, p. 137.
Calv. Right. But is it not better that you fliould be guilty on-
ly of thefe Splendid Sins ; that is, Actions which, tho' not fully
acceptable with God through want of a right Principle and Chri*
flian Motive ; yet have not only the Coiour, but Matter too, of
Virtue; and make one that he is ^offar from the Kjngdom of Gody.
were not this better, I fay, than that you (hould (will (as you do)
in Vice and Senfuality ; and make your felf the Reproach of Hu-
mane Nature, and the Scandal of the Town ?
Deb, But, Sir, the Reformation which you preach can beof /?a
Advantage to my Sotd without Grace ; and leeing this Grace is not
in. my Power, I hope you will, and it is but reafonable you fbou'd,-
allow me to gratife the Body^ feeing the contrary cannot />« iheUaft
advance the Intereft of my Sor4L ibtd,
Calv, What do I hear / Wou'd fuch a Reformation be of m
Jdvantage to your Soull Not in the leaji advance the Intereft there-
of? Where did you learn fuch Divinity ? Are there no Degrees
in Guilt? And is it not a huge Advantage to want the leaft De-
gree thereof; feeing your Punifliment in Hell pvift rife in Propor-
tion thereto, in Cafe you repent not; Or the Stingingsand Remorfe
of your Confcience here, even fuppofe you do ? And is the unfin-
cere and tranOtory Pleafure of Sin to be laid in the Ballance with
either of thefe, even in Point of plain Reafon ? But, abftra^ing
from the Advantage fuch a Reformation wou'd be of to the So^^l^
is it reafonable I fl-iouM allow you xo grattfe the Body wi:h Vice?
Vice I fay, whofe Pleafures are hollow in the preient Enjoyment,
and will at long run ruin your I^c?^;, and all your temporal Intereft .•
When even that Virtue, which you may attain to by Strength of
Reafon, carries its own Reward in its Bofom ; and recommends
it felf both by the much more manly Pleafures which attend its Ek-
ercife
Sed^ 1/ Presbyterian Faith; bii
ercife, and the folid Advantages that/£?//<?iv upon it even In this Life.
Don't you fee the Dr/</;^'W for the mofl: part reduced to Poverty,
while the Sober Man by good Manadgment and induftrious FrugaU-
ty enjoys a comfortable Competency ? Have not you obfcrved the
fir ft feized v.'ith burning Fevers? or furprized with afudden Death,
drowning in his own Vomit; while the f>//;fr has enjoyed a health-
full and vigorous Age? Did you never fee the Ruins o^Luft in
the old Adulterer-, his weak Limbs, and meagre Carcafe, and his
Body as louhfome as his Name ? Have you not obferved what
Confufion, Jealoufies, Difcords and JMifunderftandings iuch leud
Perfons have begot both in their own and their Neighbour's
Family ? Has not thi? one Sin ruined fome of the greateft
Families, and left the faireft Eftates without Heirs ? While on the
other Hand the chaft and continent Perfon has retained a healthfull
Body, afavoury Name, and left a numerous Pofterity behind him.
So that, upon the whole, your reforming from your open Debauch-
eries is in your Power by the Strength of Nature ; Andisthe moft
preferable Courfe in Point of Reafon.
Deh, But I am uncertain whether I be one of the Ele6l or Re-
probate. Ibid.
Cah, No wonder truly ; feeing you ftill continue in your De^
baucheries.: Vox, the San^tifcationofthe Sftrit^and the Belief of theTruth
are both the Fruits and Evidences of Eledion*, of which no Man
can polTibly be certain without them ; nor, in an ordinary Way,
but by them.
Dsb, But my Pra£lice depends upon my Knowledge of this. For
if I be one of the Ele6f^ I will fom^etime, were it only at the Hour
of Death,be determined by this Grace, and fo will certainly be faved,
notwithftanding the Leudnefs of my bygone Life; and if I be not,
why fhould I abftain from Sin,when an Abftinence, without Grace,
canbeofnoufetome? And this^Grace I cannot command: And if
I be none of the Ele£l, I am not to expect it: Therefore, feeing I
am to forfeit the Joys of Heaven, which is my Miffortune not my
Fault, you mud excufe me if I do not lofe the Pleafures of Sin,
which I may fo freely enjoy f Ibid,
Cah, Pray Sir, does either Reafon or Scripture di£late fuch a
pondu£t to you? Or are thefe rational Inferences from the Do-
D d 2 Qrines
212 Defence of the Ghap. ///•
Qrines of E/e^io^2ind Grace whlchyou have been taught? Is it not
necefTary in all Sciences to begin at what is moft eafie and obvious,
and thence to come to the Knowledgand Certainty of what is more
difficult? Are you not fenfible that ( befidesall the other Flaws
in your Reafoning, fuchas, ///? ujelejfnefsof an Abftimnce from Sw,
which I have already difcourfed ) you begin at the vi^rong End?
Whether you are of theEle6l or not is a fecrec with God; not o-
therwife to be difcovered by you, but by the Fruit of it, I mean,
Holinefs in Heart and Life. This God has enjoined in his revealed
Will ; and therefore it is your Duty to Study and endeavour it,
without fear of any latent Decree lying againft you: And if you
attain to it, you may then moft certainly inferr from it both your
Ele8ion and Salvation. But you will needs invert God's Order, ycu
muft needs firG: know hh Jecref Will, before you apply your ftlf
to obey his revealed Will; whereas he has enjoined you to o-
bey his revealed Will; and thence to gather his fecret Will concer-
ning your feif. For fhame, Sir, make better ufe of your Reafon.
Apply your felf to your Duty which'you are fare you ought todo;
and don't exped to be (avedin the Neglect of It upon the Account
of. your Elecfio?7'j when God has exprefly faid that be has chofen as
tj?cit mfjould'be Holy, Neither be difcouragedfrom it with the A-
prehenfion of your Reprobation ; feeing you own your felf to be«^-
eertain of it: For who would baulk cert aw Duty for uncertain
Danger? No rational Man would, reafon fo weakly about his tem-
poral Affairs.
Veh. But, Sir, whether I be of the Elect or Reprobate, there is
no doing of my Duty, Oiould I never fo much endeavour it with-
out Grace; and therefore whether I will or not, I muft continue as
1 mumiW it fhall pleafe God to determine me by his irrefiftible
Power. . Ui^,
Cdv. How Sir! May not ye do more than ye do? Have not I
fliewn you how far you may go upon Strength of Nature or com-
monGrace? What neceffity then are you underto continue as you
are ? Befides, if together with other Means you wou'd pray to God
for ejf^clualGrsiCQ, you fhou'd certainly obtain it ; if you do not^you
are mexcufable.
D^b. Oh, Sir, what an idle Exhortation is that? For, tell me I
befeech
Seft. r Presbyterian Faith 215
befeech you, is It not the Prayer of Faith which only prevaileth
with God ? Ibid,
Cah, Right. It is fo.
Dei?. And is not Faith the Effect of his irrefi(lible Grace? Ibid,
Cah, True. Of his hfuperable Grace it] is ; For, as for thcfe
Terms of Reftfttble and Inefiftible, they were firlt contrived or oc-
cafioned by the Arminuns in this Controverfy.
Deb, Well then, if my Prayer be acceptable, I have thisGrace,and
it is needlefs to pray for what I have already, p. 1 38.
Qdv, 1 hat's a falfe Inference : For Faith and every other Grace
is both prefer ved andincreafcd by Prayer and other Means to be ufed
by us; the' it is indeed needlefs to pray for the/rf/ Gift of Faith;
after I am fare that I have it, which, I fuppofe you are not.
Deb, Well then, if my Prayer be not acceptable, why fhould
I pray for what I am not to obtain ? Ibid,
Calv, Poor Sophiliry. Gad commtirids you to pray, and that
Commund makes it your Duty: And it is while People are in the
Way of their Duty that God ordinarly comes with his free Grace ;
whereas the Neglect of it renders them certainly inexcufable. Up
then and be doing. Break off your Courfe of Debauchery which
you are under no other Neceffity of continuing in, but what the
Habit of it has brought upon you ; and ply Prayer with all your
Might, which you fee you are oblifed to do by virtue of God's
Authority. And affure your felf that God will not condemn you
for" what you ca^'not^ but for what you will not do. Obferve thefe
Things I fay, and I hope (hortly to have a good Account of you.
And I heartily pray God it may be fo. Adieu
Thus I have allowed the Debauche to argue with all the Strength
Mt. Rhifid cou'd furnifli him with from the Presbyterian Scheme. And
upon the fame Scheme I have anfwered him : And I referr it to
the Reader whether, if Corruption don't prevail over Principle,
\\iQ Debauche is not obliged even by the Presbyterian Principles to
mend his former lend Life, and in a hopefull Way to make a
good Chriftian ( if he will be true to his principles; in Spite of
alVhis Obieaions. Therefore, which was the thing to be proved^
' thf
214 Defence of the Chap. 17/
the Freshyterkn DoElrine concerning the Efficacy of Grace is not
DeftruSive of.C/;y/y?//z;? Life. And I have taken this Pains, and
been fo large on this Subjed ; that I might convince all Debauches
on the Presbyterian Side, who yet I hope are not n::iore numerous
than thefe on the other, that their Leudnefs is not owing to their
Principles, but to their own vitious Inclinations: And I pray God
may blefs what I have advanced for the reclaiming them.
In ih^ fourth Place. The lafl: Presbyterian DoQrine which Mr.
Rhind impugns is that of Perfeverance^ that the
Of the DoQrine Saints cannot fall away totally nor fnally from
of P erf ever a'fice. the Eftate of Grace, but fliall certainly perfevere
therein to the End, and will be Eternally faved.
Now, too fad Experience teaches, that even the faints may
through the Temptations of Satan, and the World, the Prevalency
of Corruption remaining in them, and the Negled of the Means
of their Prefer vation, fall into grievous Sins; And for a Time con-
tinue therein ; whereby they incur God's Difpleafure, and grieve
his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of iome Meafure of their
Graces and Comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their Con-
fciences wounded, hurt and fcandahze others, and bring temporal
Judgments upon themfelves. Ail this the f/esbyterians acknow-
ledg (j). But that they fhou'd to>aUy ^n^ filially fsll away, die
Immutability of the Decree of Eledion flowing from the tree and
unchangeable Love of God the Father ; the Efficacy of the Merit
and Interceflion of Jefus Chrift ; the abiding of the Spirit and of
the Seed of God within them ; and the Nature of the Covenant
of Grace will not fuffer us to believe.
But Mr. Rbrnd is of a contrary Mind, and endeavours to dif-
prove this Dodrine i^om four Arguments. P. 13 8-— 148.
I. The Exhortations to P erf ever ame^ faith he, the Encouragments
pomi[eA ufon it^ and the fevere Threatnings in cafe of Jpoftacy do e-
vidently juffofe the Poffibility of a Fall, I deny it, they are only
Means appointed by God for their Perfeverance ; and do in their
own Nature contribute to that End. That cannot be, faith Mr.
Rhind : For that mre to contraditi the Confeffion of Faith which faies
That
C y J Conlcfi; of Fiuh. Chap. XVII. SeS, 3.
Sed, h Presbyterian Faitb: 215
Thaf the Perfeverance of the Saints does mt depend upon their own
Free Will. Strongly argued / Their Perfeverance does not depend
upon their own Free Will, £r^o Exhortations, Encouragments and
Threatnings cannot contribute to determine and fix their Willi
Our daily Bread comes from God, Ergo He cannot require our
daily Labour for gaining it 1 God has infallibly promifed that the
Saints fliall perfevere ; Ergo he muft not ufe rational Means to make
them do fo/ Mr. Rhind it feems muft be incurably gone in the
Logicks,
ir. He argues from a Text of Scripture viz. Heb. VI. 5. 6. It
is impofjible for thofe who were o?ice enlightned, and have tafied of the
Hi'avsnly Gifty and were made Partakers of the Holy Ghoft^ and of
the Powers of the World to come^ if they jjjall fall awa^j to renew them
again unto Repentance, ' Thefe, He alledges p. 140, are Epithets
* fo peculiar to the truly Faithfull, that he challenges us to fhew
'where any of them, much Isfs all together, are applyed to any
* other in the Scriptures, and yet fuch might fall away. A fair
Challenge. But then very unhappily, there is not one of thefe E-
pithers peculiar to the truly Faithful!. Not one of them but what
is found to be applyed to Wicked Men or Hypocrites ; yeafome-
limes they are all applyed together to fuch. Plainly the Meaning
of the Text is, that fuch as have been convinced of the Truth of
the Chriftian Religion, and have made publick Profeflion thereof
by Baptifm; both which are included in the Term Enlightened-,.
and thereupon have tafied of the Heavenly Gift^ that is, have not'
only been affected Vi'ith a temporary Joy, as People naturally are
upon Changes ; but alfo, which was very frequent in the Apo-
ftolick Times, have been blelTed with the extraordinary Charifma-
ta, Miracles, Tongues, Gifts of Healing and the like, exprelTed in
the Text by being made Partakers of the HolyGhosi^ and of the Pow-
ers of the World to come ; if, faith the Apoftle, fuch Perfons thus pri-
viledged (liall afterwards apoftatize to Paganifm, their Apoftacy fo ■
hardens them, and lays waft their Confcience in fo dreadfull a Man-
ner, that it is impoffible for them to return again by Repentance; .
nor ought they, as fome fay, be readmitted to the Peace of the
Church. . This is the Scnfe of the Text; but where is there any
1\iin^\\^XQ peculiar to the trt^lj Faithfull; any Thing which notori-
oully
^i6 Defence of the Chip. Ill
oufly wicked Men or Hypocrites have not been prlviledged with?
Balaam was enlightned^ he was the man whrfe Eyes were opeft^ and who
had a Vifioftof the Almightj, Numb. XXIV. 3. 4. Simon Magus
believed arjd was Baptized AQs VIIL13. The ftony-ground-Hear-
Qxs received the Word with Joj^ and yet they had no Root in themfelveSy
and therefore dured ha for a while Matth. XIII. 20.21. And many
will fay to our Lord at the La ft Day, Have we rwt prophefied in
thy Name ? Jfid in thy Namecaji out Devils? And in thy Name dons
many wonder fall Works? to whom our Lord notwithftanding will pro-
fefs not only that He does not know them ; but that He never knew them,
III. He argues from Examples viz. the GlorioDS Angels who be-
came incorrigible Devils, the Innocent Adam who became a Child
of Wrath, David who was deliberatly guilty of Adultery and Mur-
der, Solomon who was guilty of repeated Adultery and Idolatry,
Hymsneus and Alexander who were Guilty of Apoftacy and Blaf-
phemy.
As for the two firft Examples, the Angels and Adam^ they are
impertinent. It is the Perfeverance of the Saints under the Covenant
of Grace which the Presbyterians afRrm, and not of any Creature
in its natural State, 'Tis true the beft Saints cannot pretend to equal
either \a\q Angels o^ Adam in Holinefs ; but it is not upon the Mea-
fure of Holinefs ; but the Immutability of God's Decree, and fuch
other Grounds as I have already mentioned, that the Perfeverance
ef the Saints depends.
As for David and Solomon^ Mr, Rhind does not affirm that they
fell finally away and were damned ; and therefore I need not flay
to difprove that they were. The Presbyterians grant that their
Grace was not only impaired, but laid afleep for a Time like live
Embers raked up under the thick Afhes choaking both the Light
and the Heat. But Mr. Rhind averrs it was totally loft. Let us
confider on what Grounds he averrs this.
Firft, As to David. And here Mr. Rhind falls into a Couple of
the moft prodigious Blunders I have readily heard. Take his
Words. * Ify faith he p. 142, this Comminaiion, viz. that Mur-
* derers and Adulterers cannot enter into the Kjngdom of Heaven, be
* not falfe and delufory, David was upon the CommiflTion ofthefe
* Sins liable to Damnation', and if fo, he had certainly fallen from
the
Sed II; Presbyterian Faith. 217
^ the State of Grace; feeing, according to our Advcrfarles, none
* who are in that State can be thus lUble, Thus he. Now, Firjt,
did ever the Presbyterians teach, that none who are in a State of
Grace can be liable to Danination? So far from it, that they teach,
that there is not one Man even in a State of Grace, who is not
liable to Damnation. Secondly^ Is every one who is liable to Dam-
nation fallen from a State of Grace ? Why then themoft Righteous
Man on Earth falls from aStateof Grace every Day ; For he finncth
every Day, and theleaftSin makes \\\m liable to Damnation, unlefs
Mr. R/;/^^ will diftinguifh Sins into /^e/?/4/and Mortal. Hchasanothcr
Proof againfl; David viz. ' That having by his Adultery become one
* with an Harlot,he mufl: at that Time have been disjoined from Chrill
' according to the Apoftie'sDuQrine i Cor. VI. 15, K^^owje not that
' jour Bodies are the Members of Chrifi -. But God is reprefented in
Scripture as bearing the Bowels of a Father towards his People.
Now a Father may have oftimes Caufe to be Angry with his Son,
and not only to frown upon him, but to chaften him. But to re-
nounce the Relation of a Father and difinherit him is the laft
Thing he will do. So in this Cafe, the thing that David had done
dif ^leafed the Lord, yet as God had a Refer ve of Kindnefs for him,
as appeared in the IfTue: So it is plain that David did not to-
tally renounce God : And therefore, in his Penitential Pfalm on
that Occifioa, tho' he prayed indeed that God would rejlort unto
him the 'Joy of his Salvation, which intimates that he was under the
Frownings of his Countenance, and Tokens of his Wrath ; Yet
lie does not pray that God wou'd reflore his Holy Spirit unto him,
but that he would not take it from him, which is at once an Ac-
knowledgment of his Juftice, that he might do if, and yet of his
Goodnefs, that he had not done it.
As for Solomon^ Mr. Khind aggravates his Crimes at a mighty
Rate and in the burlefque ftilc; and indeed they were very great;
yet it does not become him nor any Man elfe to be harder upon
liim than the Spirit of God in the Scriptures has been. The Scri-
pture indeed fays, ^ That his Heart was not Perfect with the Lord
his God, and that he went not fully after'the Lord: But no where
does it infinuate that ever he fell quite oft from Him. Mr. Rhind
urges that the plainest Philofophy teacheth that two contrary Habits can-
E e not
Kings XI. 4. tf.
2 1 8 Defence of the Seft J^
fiot lodge At ome in the fame SubjeB ; And 'tis very true, that in the moft
intenfe Degree they cannot : But all the Philofophy that ever was
heard of teacheth, and Experience convinceth, that in more remifs
Degrees they may ; and that this was Solomo/9*s Cafe, the forecited
foft ExpreiTions of the Scripture allow us to believe.
As for Hymeneus and Alexander, the Apoftle indeed faies I TVw.
I. 19. 20. ihat they had made Shipwrack concerning the Faith, that is,
they had thrown off the Chriftian Profeflion : But he does not
fay that they had made Shipwrack of thQ Faith; for indeed he
never fo much as infinuates that ever they had been endued with
the genuine Grace of Faith. But, faies Mr. Rhwd, 1//, How
cou'*d it offend God, or harm them to lofe that which was not the true and
faving Faith i' It feems then that when a Wicked man openly
renounces Chrift, it does not, by Mr Rhind^^ Account, either offend
God or harm Himfelf. This is pretty ftrange DoQrine. 2^^, faith
He, why fbould they be delivered unto Sat an for renouncing the Faith, if if
was not that genuine Grace, when without this ( according to our Adverfa-
ties) thy were already in his Clutches? Strong Senfe/ A fcandaloufly
wicked Man is in the Clutches of Satan, why then fhould the Church,
in Cafe of his Obftinacy,by Fxcirnraunication declare Him to be fo?
Is not this mighty judicious Reafoning? ^dly, faith he, it was the fame
Faith which l^imoihy is advi fed to hold in the igver fe. Right. Ic was
the Chriftian Faith, the Profeflion whereof they had caftofiP, but
how does it appear that ever they had ht^n fubjekively polfelTed pfit?^
4ly he excepts upon the 5 and 6 ver, where it is faid. Now the End
of the Commandment is Charity, out of a pure Heart, and of a goodCofifci-
ence, and of F aith unfeigned \ from which fome having fwerved, have
turned afide unto vain 'Jangling, But the Original Word uo-To^y,<rxvriu
'w\{\QhhxQV\diQVQdifwervt:dfrom properly fignifies not to aim at-, and
fo it cannot import that thefe Perfons had ever been poffefTedofthe
genuine Grace of Faith. Plainly the Meaning of the Text is,
that fome Preachers aimed not at the great Defign of the Gofpel,
but went out of the Way to a Divinity made up of empty Words.
Thus even Dr. Hammond expounds it. But what Relation hath
this either to falling or not falling from Grace.
IV. He argues from the Nature of the Thing. If, faith he p.'
14(5, the truly Gracious not only may he^ but a^ually are guilty of very
we
Ghcip, 777 VrcshytCYim Faiths 219
IjMmus SinSy which camot be denyed ♦, ther? either thefe fms are Offen^
five to God or they are not, I anfwer tb^y are Offenfive, and there-
by God's Difpleafure is incurred, an<^ his Holy Spirit grieved, as
we have already heard from rhe Co^^feffion of Faith; and therefore
Mr. Rhind fhews what a wetcfiedly abandoned Creature he is,
when he reprefents us as ^-'aching, that the moft horrid Impieties are
not fuch when committed by tie Sair3ts. But what would he infer from
th'iSy that the Sins of the Sitnts are offenfive to God '^ Why, faith He, //
Hebean^rywithMenbP'Aufeofthem, they cannot at the fame Time be in
His Favour ; and if P^H have loHhis Favour^ they have fallen jrom his
Grace. Monftrou^ Nonfenfe / AFather cannot frown upon or cor-
rei^ His Son ou- of Love I He cannot be Angry with Him unlefs He
difown Him / A Prince cannot bedifpleafed with HisSubjeds, but
He muft infl-antly denounce them Rebells 1 This is fuch weak Stuff
that I doubt if it can be paralleled.
Thus now I have gone through the Do£lrine of the Decrees with
its Dependencies impugned by Mr. Rhind, And tho', I acknow-
ledg, thefe Do9:rines are fuch as that one cannot have full and ade- ■
quate Notions of them, the largeft Mind being too narrow to com- -
prehend them, the moft penetrating Wit to found all their Depths, -
and the mod: indefatigable Study to conquer all the Difficulties that
may be charged upon them, any other Way than by fubmitting our
Judgments to the Revelation of God; yet I hope I have made it
evident that they are (o far from being falfe ; that they are indeed the
very Dodrines of the Gofpel,and moft confiftent with a Chriftian Life. -
But the Writers of Mr. K^i/^a's Stamp form to themfelves an ima- -
ginary Scheme of Chimerical Notions, and having Chriftned them
Presbyterianifm, they tall a difputing againftthem ; and when they
have demolifhed the Brat of their own Brains, they crow over the
conqueft as if they had confuted the Presbyterian Do£tiines. That
no Body may be impofed upon by their Mifreprefentations ; as the-
Presbyterian's DoBrine may be eafily known by their publick For'
muU^s^ fo I fhallgivea jurt Reprefe'ntation of the Conduct of their-
Minifters relating to thefe DoSrines, which is this.
We never teach our People to take it at firft Hand for gt^anted: -
either that they are of the Ele^, or that they are of the Reprobate ^
But we teach ih^v^ first to examine ^^^i^thea to conclude,- And in
the-:
720 Defence of ^the Chap; IW
the Exercife of this ExATvination^ we never teach them to begin at
that Qucftion, Am I eleCfed ? but at thefe, Do I believe < Do I re-
ferjt ^ Have I a Converfatmi fuitable to the Go/pel'^ If their Confci-
ences, when throughly examii'jed, give a {?itisfyingAnfwer to thefe;
we bid them from thence conclude their Eledion, and exhort thenn
to go on in working out their Salvation mfh Fear and Trembling, But
if their Conlciences bring in a negative Anfwer upon thefe Que-
ftions, we tell them they are in a moft dijngerous State; yet we
forbid them to conclude themfelves Reprobates For we do not think^
that in the militant Church the Words Eleol; and Believer are of the
fame Extent: All Believers sltq Ele^^ but allthe\E/e<^are not as yet
Believers^ tho' they certainly {hall be fo. Upon this Principle we
exhort them to ufe the Means Reading, Hearing, Meditation,
Prayer and the like. And tho' we dare not teach them the Do-
ft.rine of Merit, either de Congruo ov Condigno; yet weaffurethem
upon God's Promife, that, in the Ufe of Means, he will not be
wanting to them with his Grace, But if they fhall continue to ne*
gleet the Means, we aflfure them that final Impenitency is an Infal-
lible Mark of Kf/'y£?^^^/(9;?, and iheCaufe of Damnation: Andthatit
is , prefumption to conclude themfelves elected when they feel not
the Gofpel Evidences thereof; telling them in the Words of the
Apodle, that God hath chofen us to Salvation through SantlifuAtion
e>f the Spirit and Belief of the Truth. And to bring home the Title
offi/^^? to themfelveS;Oth€rwife than upon thef^ Evidences, we dare
not, teach them.
I hope there is Nothing in all this but what is both agreeable to
the Scripture, and tends to promote Holinef. Here then I might put
an End tothisSubje£i: But there is fomething further to be done for
humbling the Pride of thefe Gentlemen who are fo full of themfelves
Ui.on Mr. Rhino's Scheme, .
Sea
Sea ; 11, Presbyterian Fahk' ':: 2 1
SECT II.
Wherein is proved^ that the Presbyterian Articles-
of Faith, impugned by Mr. R hind, are the
fame with thoje of the n?hole Chriftian Church.
FOR making this good I afTert I. Thattbefe Doarlnesarethe
Dodrines of the whokfornig/^ Churches that go by the Name of
REFORMED ; And that, in the Judgment of the higheft and men:
learned EpifcopalUns^nmhQX in there,nor indeed in any Thing elfe Re-
latingto Dodrine, do they maintain any Thing that \% fundamentally
falfe. II. That thefe Dodrines are the Do£lrines ofthofeofthe Epifcofal
Commumon in Scotland, III. That they are the Do£lrines of the
Church of England. IV.Tocompleat all, That the CATHOLICK
Church of ChriH: hath declared thefe Dodrines to be the Orchodox
Faith ; and thatfuch as oppofe them are worthy of an ANATHEMA.
Ifl fliall prove all thefe Things, and that from unconteffed Docu-
ments, which I am tolerably fure of doing; I hope it will follow,
that thefe Doctrines can be no juft Ground of Separation from the
Vresbjterjans ; and that Cuchasdo feparate on the Account of them
cannot claim Communion with any Church in the World. Let us
try it then.
1. 1 fay that thefe DoQrines are the Dodrinesofthe whole Forreign
Churches which go by the Name of Reformed. For proving this I
^ need not appeal to this or the oiher particular D/V/;?^'. No. I referr
the Reader to the Syntagma Conft(Jionun\ where he may have the
QonfiHioris xAiXX the Reformed Churches under his View at once.
And that they allaflert thefe Doflrines is lo evident that no Man
ever to this Day denyed it ; fothat I need not infift. But then, to
make this Argument compleat-, I add, that in the Judgment of the
higheft and mofl; learned Epijcopalians, neither in thefe, nor indeed
in any Thing elfe relating to Dodrine, do they maintain any Thin^
that isfundimentall) falfe. For this, the Teltimony of Mr. Dodwill
will be fufRcienr, He, in His Book which 1 have fo often before
cited,
a:22 Defence of the Chap 711?
cited, I mean the Var^mftsaa Exteros, in order to recommend Epi/co-
pac^tothQ Forreigfi Churches, by fhewing how much it wouM con-
duce to the Good of the Reformation if Bifliops were reftored, writes
thus ' Were this done/aiih he (^j I do not indeed fee why Communt-
*" on'might not be held with at le?rt all the Reformed Churches ; For,
' asfor6W«/^;?i, and Socinianizing Armhians^ I don't think them
* worthy the Name o^ Reformed. But asto thereO-, Ifeew funda-
* mental Do£lrines in which they differ, Imean, whi^h are clearly
^delivered in the Scripture. And that fuch only can be called /r/;?.
< ^^w<';?/^/Dodnnes,the Kf/'tJr;;?^^ at leaft are agreed, ncrought any
^ Dodrines, which are not fundamental, obftrud Communion with
* other Churches, Thus far Mr D(3<j^n7f//. 'TisthenaplainCafe, by
His Judgment, that thefe Dodrines which Mr K/;/;?^ has quarrelled
zxQ mi fundament ail) fdfe, and that none ought to feparate from any
Communion on the Account of them ; and as little from the Presby-
terians in v_^Vo//^;?/5i as any. For, I fuppofe, every Man will own that
there is no Society under the Cope of Heaven more free oi Sociniamfm^
or that favours Socinianizing-^^^^i^/^^^lefsihan they. I hope then
the frfi Point is fairly gained.
11. Thefe Dodrines which Mr Rhttjd has quarrelled are the Do-
drines of thofe of the f/'/A^/'^/ Communion m Scotland, In all the
Revolutions fince the Reformation wherein tvtx Eptfcofacy got the
Afcendant, we hear but of one Confefsion of Faith formed by them,and
that was in the AlTembly at Aberdeen Anno 1616 in which Archbifhop
5/^£??/iiwiprended- Now hear feme Articles of it.
This Glorious God , from all Eternity^ out of his Wifdom and Infinite
Kilowfedge decreed all things that were after to be done.
This God, before the Foundation of the World was laid, according
to the gcod Pleafure of His Will for the Praifeof the Glory of His
Grace did predefiinate and eVid in Chrift fome Men and Angels unto
eternal Felicity, and others He did appoint for eternal Coiidemnation^
according to the Council of His mod Free, moft Juft and moil:
Holy Will, and that to thePiaifeand Glory ofhis Jurtice. .
By
[ z ] Nccfanc video cur, id fi fierer, cum omnibu's, faltem Rcformatis EccleQ]s, Commerciuni illu4
iviberi non poffic. Ncc enim dignos eo nomine pmoSocniian'S, lec qui Sochiiaui, iavenz ,yi,min.ano<. In
rcuquis/tt);<ijmf;/f.z//.j dogmata »;?*//« vii'eo in quibusdifcrepent, qt'.xqindem peiipici:e ttadantur m Knpcuris,
yixceMmhla. f/ind.:mcntulut appellaii i^ofie, conveniiinc ialtem Retormaci. Nee dcbint alia dugniaca ob-
ilarequominujcum Ecckfijs alijs Communio fervetur, freteiquam hmdamentalu. far^nes. Setit j^.. p 24.K
ScSt. I. Presbyterian Faitb. 225
By theFallofy^^rfwall His Pofterity are fo corrupted from their
Conception and Nativity, that /?«?/?^ of them frf» door will ^iwjy Thing
/r/z/y acceptable unto God, till they be renewed by the Will and Spi-
ritofGod, andbyFaiih ingrafted in Chriftjefus.
Albeit all Mankind be fallen in Jdam, yet fj;?/y thefe who are
ele^^ed before all Time, are in Time redeemed, reftored, raifed
and quickened again ; not of themfelves or of their Worksj left
any Man fliould glory, but only of the Mercy of God.
We believe, that albeit the EledofGod, through Infirmity and
through the Enticements thereof, fin grievoufly to the Offence of
God, yet they cannot i/^(?^^f^^y fall from Grace, but are raifed a-
gain through the Mercy of God and keeped to Salvation. Thus the
i>cotch Rpi(cop3i\Co/ifefsio» of Faith.
All this they fubfcribed with their Hands, con fe (Ted with their
Mouths, and profefled to believe with their Heart, and at the fame
Time declared the Church of Scotland to be one of the moH pure Kjrks
under Heaven, What an unaccountable Thing then is it in our Epffco*
faUitns to objed pgainft the Dodrines of their own Confejfion of faith as
fundamemallj hlfe and pernicious ? Have they quite foiefworn all Mo-
defty ? Will they fay that they have altered their Faith ? If fo, let
tJs know when they did it. Let us know where we may find their new
Confefsion of it ? If thefe Dod rines 2iXt fundament ally falfe and Pernici-
ous,- I can never come over to the Epif copal SidG, nor indeed any Man
that regards his Soul : For how well pleafed foever I may be with
their Qovemmenty yet their Doctrines are damnable. So much for
the Second Point, which I hope is fairly enough cleared.
III. Thefe DoQrines are the exprefs DoQrines of the Church of
England in Her XXXIX Articles, I before produced the XIII
Article declaring Works done before the Grace of Chrijl to have the
Nature of Sin* Two Articles more will be fuiBcient for my
Farpofi,
ART.-
'-•S^^CJJW
p;^4 Defence of the Chap. 7/2
ARTICLE X
Of FreeWill.
THe Condition of Man after the Vs\\d Adam is fuch thatH®
camot turn and Prepare Himfelfby his own Natural Strength
and good Works to Faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we
have»(? power to do good works pleafant and acceptable to God, with-
out the Grace of God by Chrift Prevefiting us, that we may have a
good will, and ivorkwg with us when we have that good will.
ARTICLE XVII
.a
OF
Predefiination and EleBion]
PRedeftination to Life is the ev^erlafting purpofe of God, whereby
( before the Foundations of the World were laid ) He hath con-
ftantly decreed by his Counfel, becret to us, to deliver from-Curfe
and Damnation thofe whom He hath chofen in CWi^otdt ofMaf^m
kind, and to bring, them by Chrift unto everlafting Salvation as
Veffels made to Honour. Wherefore they which be endued with
fo excellent a Benefit of God, be called according to God's Pur-
pofe, by his Spirit working in due Seafon. They through Grace
obey the calling, they be juftified freely, they be made Sons of
God by Adoption, they be made like the Image of His only be-
gotten Son Jefus Chrift : They walk religioufly in good Works,
and at length by God's Mercy they attain to everlafting Felicity
Thefe Articles were agreed to in the Year 1562, and are the
only authorized Standard to this Day. There are but two Things
can be ofK^red to take off the Weight of this heavy ObjeQion viz,
ift That the Clergy don't receive them as Articles of Fmh, but as
VimuU Pads ; or to ufe Mi Rhiȣs Words p. 119 where hefeems
to have dcfigned to anticipate this ObjsQion, that it is only an Acquis
efcence
SeSt. IL Presbyterian Faitb. 225
efcef7ce net an imvArdAffent that is required. I crave Leave to con fider
this Defence: And if any Man can take OiTwhatlam to offer againfl:
ir, I fliall yield that He has anfwered my whole Book.
In the jirli Place, admitting the Arttcks were defigned not for
Articles of Faithj but to be VimuU Pacis, and that it were only an
acquiefcenfe in, not an imvard jfint that were required to them ;
yet how is it confiftent with common Honetty in any Clergy-
Man of that Communion to Preach, Print, Difpute againft and
ridicule the Dodrine contained in them i Is that to /ic<^(aefce in them?
zdlj, Ifthe Dodlrincscontain'din thefe Articles ^xQjiind^mentdlyh\{Q
and Pevnicious,how can any Clergy-Man with a good Confcience pro-
mifeto acquiefcein them? Ifthey areof fuch a damning Nature, is he
not obliged under Pain of Damnation to himfelf to warn People
againft them? 1 hefe two Things I have fuggefted upon Suppo-
fition that nomorebutan ^f^///>A^;^;t^ in them were required. But
then I add 5^/7, That that Alledgance is even impudently falfe.
For /r//, the very Title of the Articles bears, that they were agre*
ed upon, not only for the avoiding oftheDiverfities of Opinions^ but
for the (lai?li[hing of Ccnfent touching true Religion, Secondly^ By
the XXXVI. Canon 160^ all Bifhops are difcharged to Ordain, ad-
mit or Licenfe any fo much as to Preach, till fuch Perfon acknow-
ledge all and every the Thirty Nine Articles to be agreeable to the
Word of God^ and fubfcribe the fame wilUngly and ex Animo. Is
it Poflible that Ar tides can be agreeable to the Word of God^ and yet
at the fame Time fundamentally falfe and pernicious ? Is it Poflible
one can fubfcribe them as agreeable to the Word of God ex Animo
without inward Jffent, Thirdly, By the Statute 1 3 Eliz. 1 2. It is
ordain'd that every Perfon, to be admitted to a Benefice with Cure,
Ihall, within two Months after his Indufiion, publickly read the
faid Articles in the Church whereof he hath the Cure in Common-
Prayer Time, with Declaration of his J//'^/^^ thereunto; and if
afterward he fhall maintain any Do£^rine repugnant to the faid
Articles, and fhall perfift therein, it fhall be lawfull fortheBiOiop
to deprive him. So much for the firji Defence.
* The Second is, * That theie Articles being conceived in fuch ge-
* neral Words, that they may admit of different literal and gram-
l matical Senfes, even when the Senfes given are plainly contrary
; F f tg
a^5 Defence of the Chap Ilh
* 'to one another; the Jrmimam mzy fubfcribe them with a good
* Confcience and without any Equivocation (^aj. But this De-
fence is yet worie than the former, if worfe cou'd be.. For jfi^ .
Can there be a greater Scandal upon a Church than to reprefent
htr Jrndes of Religion 2iS a Nofe of Wax, that may be twifted ei-
ther to this or the quite contrary Side ? Is it PofTible to elicite
Sound and Orthodox Do£trine, and Dodrine fundamentally falfe
and pernicious out of the fame Words? Doth the fame Fountain
fend forth fveet Waters and bitter ? ' 2^/7, Dr. Sachez>erell molt juftly
reckons them (^) Faife Brethren who expound any of thefe Articles
of Faith in fuch aloofe and vagrant Way as may fute them as well
to a Mahometans as a ChriHiarPs Creed, "^dly, Tht CalviniflickSen^Q
Tas it is commonly called; was the only Senfe defigned in thefe
Articles : : For, the Framers of them were Calvinifis themfelves ^ ;
and therefore 'tis never to be thought they wouM frame them fo
as to be Capable of any other Meaning. For pray what cou'd be
the Ufe or Effect of an Acknowledgment of, or Subfcription to '
them on that Suppofition. ^thly^ The Church of England has loud-
ly" proclaimed to the World, that She owns thefe Articles only in
the CalviniJlick Senfe: . And till LaudthQ Bnxt\^Hero[lrarus b^g^n ■
to fet the Nations on Fire, the Church of England iYil] profecuted
thofe that impugned that Senfe of them ; And the Noble Lord
Falkland in his forecited Speech tells us, that the contrary Doctrines ^
had not been oftner preached than Recanted. Plainly, the Engltfb
Vhiverfitissy: ibe Supreme Ecclefiaftical Governours of the Church, ,
the Court^ and the Delegates to Forreign Synods have all declared
for thefe Calvinifttck Doctrines, and aflerted them to be the Do-
ctrines of the Church of England,
Firfi I fay thei Englifh^Vntverfities have donefo. In theyear 1595 ;
one Mr Barret of Caius College in Cambridge preaching in the Uni-
verfity Church called St M^r/^i adventured on an Invedive againft '-
the DoQ-rines of PredeHination and Perfeverance, l^hxs Sermon, tho* -
preached in Latine, and. which therefore cou'd not much affed the :
Vulgar, yet inftantly. gave the 1 Alarm to the Univerfity; The -
heads >
fa] See 5tt>-«ff'j Expof. P. 8. [ b j Sermen. on Falfc. Bietkrsn,: p. £mihi J jj. i*,.
* Burttct Ubi Supra p, iji, 1^2. \
Sed. 77. PrcshytCYim Faith. '227
heads of the Several Houfes viz. Dr. Some^ Dr. Duport^ Dr. Goa^
Vv.Timall, Di'M^hiLtkerSy Dv.Barwell, Dr. Je^om, Dr Prefio»,Mt.
Chadderto^^ and Mr.(%fo/?prefentIy met upon it, and upon Mature
Deliberation and Advice, by their «;?4«/wo»j Vote adjudged Mr. B^r-
ret to recant his AfTertions asfa/fe, erroneous and manifeftly repugnant
to the Religion received and eftablifhed in the Church of EngUnd by
publick and lawful Authority. This was a very bitter Pill to Mr
Biirret ; yet either his Stomach or His Confcience prevailed with Him
to give it Throat. Accordingly, upon the loth ofA%inthefaid
Year, He appeared in the l^/^/wr/^j Church where he had offended,
and made 2Li2d\' Recar^tanon, The Sermon isftill extant in Print,
and I fl^all beg Leave togive one Note of it. ' Thefe Words, faith
* //<?, efcaped Me, viz. As for thofe that are notjaved^ I domofi
^^ firorfglyhelieve, and do freely prate fl that I amfoperfwadedagai»ftCal^
^ vifij Peter Martyr ^ and the reji^ that Sin is the true, proper, and fir ft Qaufe
^ of Reprobation, But now being better inftrudled ; I fay, that the
* Reprobation of the Wicked is from everlafting, and that that Say-
* ing of Augufiine to Simplician is moft true viz. If Sin mre the Cauje
* of Reprobation^ then no Manfhouldbeele^ed^ becaufeQod doth foreknow
^ all Men to be defiled with it. And C that I may {peak freely ) I am
* of the fame Mind ; and do believe concerning the DoQrine of E-
* ledion and Reprobation, as the Church of £»^/^»^ belie veth and
* teacheth in the Book ohhQ Articles of Faith, in the Article of Pre-
' dedi nation.— AndIacknowledg,thatby the Vertue of the Prayer
* of Chrift, every true Believer is fo ftayed up, that his Faith cannot
* fail.— So that He which ow^ hath this Faith fhalUwr have it. Thus
Mr Barret, The whole Sermon is worthy Mr Rhindh perufal ; For I
have the Charity to wifh that He may one Day have Ufefor it.
Secondly^ The Supream Ecclefiafttcal Governours of the Church have
declared yet more pofitively for thefe Dodrines. Upon the 20th of
November ivi the faid Year 1595 they met at Z.4w^^;/;and framed the
famous N ine Lambeth Artiqles, which are as follows
F f i THE
228 Defence of the ^^.llll
The Nine Affcrtions or Articles of Lambhetby
compofed and agreed upon at Lamhheth
Houfe on the 20 l>ay oi November, in the
y eere of our Lord 1595 ^Y J^^^ Arch-
bifliop of Canterbury^ Richard Bifliop
of London, Richard tXtdi Billiop of Ban-
gor^ and fundry other Reverend and
Learned. Divines there prefent.
Ij •^OD from Eternity bath Predeftinated certain Men unto-
V7 Ux^Q-jCertam Men he hath Reprobated unto Death.
2. The moving or efficient Cauie of Predeftination unto Life, is'
not the Forefight of Faith, or of Perfeverance, or of good Works,
or of any Thing that is in the Perfons Fredeftinated, hvaonl) ia
the Will of the well pleafed God.
5. There is a defmte znd certain Number of the Predeliinate which *'•
can neither be Augmented nor diminfhed.
4. Thofe who are not Ftedeftinated to Salvation fhall hs necejfarly '
. Damned for their fins. .
5. A true, living and juftifying Faith and the Spirit of God jufti-'
fying is not extinguifiied, it falleth not away, it vanifheth not"
away in the Elect either/W/y or totally,
6. A Man truly faithfull, that is, fuch a one who is endued with'
a juftifying Faith, is certain with the full AfTarance of Faith, of >
the Remiffion of his Sins, and of his Everiafting Salvation by
Chrift. ,
7. Saving Grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted -
to 4// Men by which they may be faved if they will. ,
8. No Man can come unto Chrift, unlefs it Iball be given unto ^
Him, and unlefs the Father fhall draw him: And allMenarenot
drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son.
9.. It is not in the Will or Power of every one to be faved. "
Thus far the Lamheth Articles. And this was as plain going to
Work as one cou'dwiCh. .
Thirdly^
5ed. IL Presbyterian FaitF. 229
Thirdly^ The C<?//^? was not behind with the Church. When af-
ter wards ArminUnifm prevailed in the V»ited Provinces, and had cau-
fed ttrrible Convulfions, K, James VI was aware of the Danger the
B^-ri/Z? Dominions were in. He was a Prince very well feen in the
Roman ClafTicks, and no doubt had read the
...*.. Jamfroxmus ardet
Vcalegon.—' -
And therefore thought itreafonabletobeftirr Hirofelf to prevent the
fpreading of the Flame. For this Purpofe He fent over his Ambaffa-
dour Sir Dudlj Carlton to perfwade thevSV^^^i to provide Come Remedy
and tofmorher the Sparks which might fet Him on Fire. Sir Dud/y
upon the 6 of 0(^t?^^?- 1617 attended iWw High-Might ineffes aflem-
bled at the H4g«f,and delivered Himfelf in a moft elaborate Speech,
wherein Hedeclares the Doctrine impugned by Arminius to bs the true
and ancient Dod\rine, and to have been received and authorized by
the common Confent of rf//the Reformed Churches ; and that the
Sehifm which prevail'd within the Church, and the VnBion in the State
were both owing to Arminius, I hope none will deny that Sir Dudlj
had His Great Mafter's Allowance for faying all this (f). And upon
the whole He foliciis ihem to call a •Sj^c^i^ for determining the contro-
verted Points.
Fourthly^ The Engliflj Df/c^/2ftf/ to forreign Synods, have declared
the fame Way. Uj on the forefaid Solicitation the Synod oi Dot
niet, and wasaffiltedby Divines fronvthe Church of £^;^/W: And
in thefaid Synod fuch Conclufions were made upon thQ fve Ar^
tieles^ as I need not tell any Body, are the very fam.e with the Do-
ftrines contain'd inihQWeJlmjn(ier ConfefTion, maintained by the
5^^/^i Presbyterians, and now impugned by Mr Rhind and the Men
of his Kidney (dj. Somewhile after the Return of thefe Delegates
from the Synod, they were attaqued by a certain Scribler on theic
Condu'i and the Dodrinal Conclufions they had gone in to. They
thought it neceffary to defend themlelves, and accordingly wrote;
A JOINT ^ATTESTATION 0), whereof take the lafi Words.
' Whdtfoever there was alTented unto andfubfcribed by us cqncer-
l ning iliQ^ve Articles either in the Joint Sy nodical Judgment,or in our
particular
[c] See Che Speech it feUfer forch by Authority, LoudOB prinwd by WiHiam Jones. 1618* £d] Vide
Afti Synod. Dordrac, (e) Loitdon printed by M. Flelhev. ' •
,•250 T>e fence of the Chap , llh
particular Collegiate Suffrage ( ftyledinthe AQs of the Synod Theo-
logorum MagK<t BritamU Senientu^ and at large extant there ) is not
only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but alfo conformable to the,
received Doctrine of our faid venerable Mother. Which we are rea-
dy tomaintain, andjuftifie againft all Gainfayers, whenfoeverwe
Ihall bethereunto called by lawfull Authority, ha attejlamur,
G^OKGlM'^CiceJlrienfts Epifcopus
' JOHAl^NES Sarisburiefjjis Epifcopus.
GualterusBalcanquall Decan.Roff.
Samuel Ward Pub. Profefs. TheoL in Jcad. Cant. & Coll, Sid,PrafeSi,
Thomas Goad Sacr^TheoL Doctor,
I hope all this is more than fufficient to prove that the Doctrines
impugned by Mr. K/^/W, as fundamenulljfalfe and permcwus,2LVC tho
Doctrines of the Church of £«^/^»^'»and that they are not only Articles
of Peace^hut Jrticlesof Faiihm.ThmkihQn vjbat a wife Part He has
acted in feparating from the Presbyterians upon the Account of thefe
Articles, and joining the Church of £«^/^«^, which has exprefly
declared fuch as affirm them to be in any Pari erroneous to be Ex-
communicated ipfo Fa^o ( f). So much for the Church of England.
IV. Thefe Doctrines are the Doctrines of the C^?/^o//V^ Church of
Chrift, which has alfo declared, that fuch as oppofe them are wor-
|thy of an Jnathema, What Method fliall I take to prove this ? Shall
I go through the feveral Authors in thefevera! Ages ? That were too
tedious. But, which will be equally fufficient, I fhali prove it from
the Account of one who was tptfcopaltan Himfelf, ^Scou Man too,
and who was inferiour to none in Theological Abilities, and is
held in the greateft Veneration by all of the Epfcopal Communion.
The Perfon I mean, is Dr 'John Forbes a Corje Divinity Profeffor at
Aberdeen^ I flhall prove it from His InHruBiones Hiliorico Theologica^
a Work, which, to give BiQiop B^r/^^^'s Character of it (^;, < If
.« He had beenfuffered toenjoy the Privacies of His Retirement and
* Study to give us the Second Volume, had been the greateft Treafure
' ofTheological Learning that perhaps the World has yet feen. The
whole Eight Book of the forefaid Work is written on Purpofe,to fhew
ihat thefe Dodrines, which Mr. Rhind has impugned, were the
Doctrines
£f],C*uonV. \6oy C SJ Trefacc to His Life ©f Di BeddelJ.
Sed. IL Presbyterian Faitk '231
Do£^rInes of the Catholick Church of Chrift, and to anfwer the
Objedionsofthe PaUgiarts ?inA Semi-Pelagians againft them ; which
Objedlions are the very fame with thofe Mr. i^/;/W has advanced.
He has comprehended the Sum of the Controverfy in the XII Chap^
ter of his faid VIII Book mfeven Queftions, in which he runs the
Difference betwixt the Faith of the Catholick Church and the O-
pinions of the forefaid Hereticks, Thefe Queftions will fet the
whole Matter in a true light, and they are as follows
1. J2s/eB. Whether are the forefeen good Things of thofe who "
are Eleded, their Will and Faith and good Works and Perfeve-
rance in them, or any of thefe Things the Caufe for which they
are Ele^led, or a Cor/dition prerequifite in thofe that were to be E- '
leded ? Or whether all thofe Things in the EleQ are the Effects
of Election and Predeftination? The Semi-Pelagians affirmed the
Firft, and denyed the Latter. But the CATHOLICKS denyed
the firft and affirmed the latter.
2. 5. Whether is not the Number of the Ele£l and of Mea
Predeftinated by God to Grace and Glory from Eternity, definite
and determined: So that of them »<?«f fhall perifh, and befidestheni '
tjone fhall be faved ? TIiq Semi^Pelagia^s denyed it. The CA-'
THOLICKS affirmed it.
3.^. Whether hath God from Eternity Predeftinated fome to '
Evil? The 6V/»i Pf'/^^/^/?/ utterly deny that any Man was Pre-
deftinated either to Sin or to Deftruaion. The CATHOLICKS di-
ftinguifhed, and denyed that any Man was Predeftinated to Siffj^r
but affirmed that they were Predeftinated to Pujjifljment,
4. ^. Whether of the Repiobate did God find the Demerits moa
and worfe than of thofe whom he Elected, and therefore Repro-
bated the former and Predeftinated them to Deftruction, and E--
lected the latter and Predeftinated them to Life Eternal? Orwhe-
ther he did hot find them both equal in their Demerits and worthy
of eternal Death ? The Semi- Pelagians affirmed the firft.- Tha -
CATHOLICKS affirmed the latter. -
5. .Q.., Whether, of this Difference or Difcrimination whereby '
fome are Predeftinated to Life Eternal, there be any other Caufe -
affigned in the Scripture, befides the moft free Will of God, rvho -
hath Mercj u^on whomi He-mll'hAve- Mmjiy and hardneth whom He
* " Will\ 1
25 2 ' Defence of the Chap. Ilf;
mil ; and if it be Ldtvfull for us to fearch for any other Caufe ? The
Semi-Pelf gians affirmed it. The CATHO LICKS denyed it.
6. "^Whether does this Doarine of the CATHOLICKSattribute
t'whtt hjuflice ox Cruelty to God, or render Exhortations, Prayers
and the S:udy of Piety ufelefsto Men ? Th^Stmi-Pelagims affirmed
it. The CATHOLICKS denyed it.
7. ^. Whether, fuppofing this Doarine of the CATHOLICKS
true, is it expedient to Preach it openly and in earneft to the peo-
ple? The Sewi Pelagiam denyed it. But the CATHOLICKS af.
firmed that it was to be preached openiy and in earneft, yet pru-
dently and feafonabiy as all Divine Myfteries ought to be, and
with a right dividing of the Word of Truth.
, Thus far that great Man. And in confirming thefe Cathelkk
Do^rines He employs the reft of the faid Book: And does it main-
ly from the Teftimonies of the Fathers, in which no Man was
better feen. And, to crown all, in the IV Chapter ofthefaid VIII
Book He declares, that the contrary Dodkines were, by Maxemius^
Petrus Diacoms^n^ the whole f^/fri? Churches with h'lW.By Fulge ft-
tiusznd the African Bifhops: And by the European Wtjhm Church-
es, Judged HERETICAL, deftrudivly alien from the CATHO-
LICK Senfe, and worthy of an ANATHEMA in cafe of Obftmacy
in them.
And now what melancholy Refleaions muft Mr R^/Wmake,
when he confiders that, as by the former Part of his Book he
made Himfelf a Sehijmatick fo by this part of it, he has made
himfelf a moft grofs Heretick? Wh^n he confiders that Mr Dod-
well himfelf has given him the Lye, and that ihQ\Nho\Q Forreigrt
Reformed Churches,our 5fd?/f/?Epilcoparians,the Church of Er^gUnd^
and the C4;^(?//<r/^ Church of Chrift have all of 'em declared for thefe
Doarines which he has XQ]tQ,Qdi2isfu»darmntally falfe andprnicious :
And when he finds himfelf, by the Judgment of the Catholick Church
through the world, enrolled amongft the worft of Hereticks, pro-
nounced worthy of an ANATHEMA, and .ftanding de fatio
excommunicated by the Church oi Er3gUnd\
That I may conclude. Ih^v^heArd indeed ("tho'Ithinkit but a
Fable) ofaProteftant Church fomewhere on this fide A^ci/^i^^/w^/^ ;
though I cannot now name the precife Bearing of the Place, where
Nothwg
StSth Presbyterian Worfhip. 233
Nothing is required in Law to qiJs^IifyaClergy.Man, but that He do
not openly d^^ay or impugn the Doctrine of the Trinity. Though Ho
does not believe th.it ^ and tho' He publickly impugn^// the other
Articles of Chriftianity, it is Nothing. I grant Mr Rhind might
fervefora Pricft under fuch a Conjlitution \ But how He can be
capable to ferve as fuch in Britain is more than f underftand. But
let thofe who put Him into Orders look to that. I proceed.
CHAP. IV.
Wherein Mr. R Hindis Third Reafon for Se-
parating from the Presbyterians vi^. that their
Worfhip is chargeable with fundamental
Corruptions and Defers as to the Matter y
and that it is very imperfed as to the Man-
ner^ ts examined. From P. 148, to P. i85,
TH I S Mr Rhinci aflerts p 1 49. And if it appear he has pro-
ved ir, I fhall own his Separation was Juft. Imperfections
we acknowledge, as I think all Mankind ought to do,even
in our beft Performances. But fundamental Corruptions & Defects we
i'efufe,&: want to find them proved againll us. In the mean Time, to fe-
G g paraie
234 Defence of the Ghap. IF.
parate from the Sco^x Wos fhlp, becaufe of its Corruption ; and to go
over to the E/^glijh Worfhio as purer, looks fo very like a Jeli, that
formy Heart Icannot burfmileat it, aslam furefive hundred others
have done before Me, and twice as many, 'tis Idcely, will do after
Me.
Mr K^/Weffays the Proof of His Charge in two Particulars viz P/'^j-
ers and Sacraments, I fhall diftinctly confider what He has advanced
on each.
SECT. I.
Wherein Mr R hind's Exceptions agatnjl the Pre^
sbytertans Prayers are examined^ From F.^
149^(7 P. 177.
AGAINST thefe he excepts two Things I. That the Matter of
theni is Corrupt and Defective. 11. That the Manner of them
isfofar from being the beft, that it is very Imperfect. His Proof
ofthefe Exceptions I Cball confider info many Atticles.
ARTICLE I.
Wherein Mr KXimd^s Froofs^ That the Matter:
of the Presbyterians Vriycrs if Corrupt and
DefeBive^ are Conjidered. . From P, 1 49 to
p. 15^-
FOPw making good this Charge F/>/, He argues, xh^lkmuHh^'
fo. Secondly^ He makes an Indu^ion of the Farticulars wherein
it Vi foi FtrsK:
Se6l/7. Presbyterian P^Vy^/p' 255
F/>/, He argues that it nfufi be fo. * If, faith Hi p. 149, their
* Dot'hine be Corrupr, fo muft their iVorfhfp be too j bccaufc t he Ho.
' ctrines, which are the common Subjects of their 6Vy^«<?/?j, do like-
* wifeconditute tlie Sub[i:ance of their Prayers, The Anfwcr is
eafie. I hnve proved in the preceeding Chapier^ that thefe Do-
ctrines, which he charges as Corrupt^ are the Doctrines ofthe Ca~
tholick Church of Chrifr, beheved by every Chriftian, long before
the Upftart Scd of the Hioh Fljers was heard of in the World. There-
fore the Prayers which are formed agreeably to thefe Do^hweiczn
not be Corrupt. Suppofe now I had been Preaching th^ Doctrine
0^ AbfQluie Eldtion: After Sermon I break out into a Prayer to
this Purpofe.
O GOD We thank thee that Thou haft Predeftinated Us unto the A-
doption of Children by JefusChrift to thy Self, according to the Good
pleafureof ihy W^ill,tothe Praife and Glory of thy Grace, whereby
Tiiou haft made us accepted in the Beloved; & haft from the Beginning
chofen us to S.iIvation through Sandification of the Spirit and belief of
the Truth. Thou mighteft have defigned Us for Veftels of Wrath,
as Thou didft the fallen Angels, and then we had been eternally
undone without all poflible Remedy. There was Nothing in us
to move Thee when we lay all together in the general heap of
Mankind. It was Thy own /y^?^ Grace and Bounty, that made
Thee to take Delight in us, tochufe us from the Reft, and tofevereus
from ihefe many Thoufands in the World u'ho (hall perifhever-
laftingly. Give us Grace webeCeecb Thee, that we may give all
Diligence 10 make our Calling and Elc6\ion fure— •?
This Prayer is exa6\ly formed upon the Scheme ofthe Irrefpe^
f^ive Decrees. But is there any thing in it which any Chriftiati
may not join with ? Mr Rhhd muft needs fay there is. In the
mean Time I muft tell him, I was taught it by IViikins Biftiop
of Cheftcr (h) who fhou'd have known what was Sound what Cor-
rupt Do61rine, at leaft as well as Mr Rhind.
Secondly^ He makes an InduBion of the particulars wherein
the Presbyterian's Prayers are Corrupt or Defective. Whith take
as follows in Ttn particulars.
Gg 2 I
C h ] GUL of Prayer Chap. XXVIH. Eighth Edit.
2^6 Defence of the Chap) IV.
1. They pray, faith He p. I'^o, for the Continuance of Vrtshyxe.vhfx
Government^ and blefs God for the Extirpation of, and befeech him
to preferve this Nation from Prelacy. But I have a 1 read]' proved
that Presbytry is of Divine Inftitution, and that Prelacy is without
all^ Scripture Warrant. Therefore fuch Prayers are lo far from
being a Corruptionj that they are a Duty, even as much a Duty
as it is to pray, that every ?lam rvhich our Heavenly Father hath noi
planted may be rooted up,
2. They thank God^ faith he Jbid^ for continuing tlr Presbyterian
Docirine. But this I have proved to be the Dodrine of the
Gofpel, and believed by all the Chriftian Church. It were there-
fore the worft Ingratitude not to thank God for the Continuance
of it.
5. They rever omit^ faith he ibid, in their Publick Vrayers to ask a
BleJJing.upon the Word that is to be, or has been Preached, 'Tis true
we do fo, and let him make his worflofit. And when he gets
a new Revelation to prove the Word which we Preach to be Z^>»-
pious and Falfe^ .we beg he may let us hear of it.
4. They blefs God, faith he ibid, for, and entreat him to continue th^
Purity of their Woifliip. 'Tis true we do fo, and I hope God
fhall hear us. But it was too foon for him to afirt it to be Cor-
rupt, before he had proved it to be fo. This is the Thing they call
Beggtng the Que [I ion, or, which is w or fe, proving aThing by it Self.
The Presbyterian Worfhip is Corrupt, becaufe it is Corrupt/ A
very handfome Way of Difcourfing, andno doubt very con vinceing! >
5. They pray, {m)^ hep. 151, that God may flop the Progrejs of the
'Et\g\\^i\' Liturgy, Anf. Amen, even fo be it. But why cou'd not
Mr. Rhind join in fuch a Praye.r? Why, he cou'd not do it ^vith-
out cffendingGod, it being the most excellent (f all others. I fliall not
fay what it may be in its Nature, but fare I am it has not proved
fuch in its Confcquences'. . For, fiuce ever there were Liturgies in
the World, never any of 'em, no not all of 'cm together have oc-
cafioned io much Strife and-Divifion, fo much War and Blood- filed,
as that Jias done.. But he gives another Reafoa why he could not
join in fuch a Prayer, Vv'hich is indeed a very notable one. I could
mi. da it, faith he, without Tu&fo-a ^againji the OUeen, it being that
rvhich '
Scd. L Presbyterian PForJJjip. 2^7
which her Majejly PraCfifeSj and has authorized ( tolerated he fllouM
have faid ) the Exercise of, to thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwajion in
Scotland. Now I ask. iH, When was the Law made which
makes it Treafon to pray againft the Progrefs of the Ef?gi/Jb Litur-
gy. I don't think there is any Thing Treafo/jj but what the Law
his declared to be fuch. Pray, Good Mr. R/^/W, cite the Law in
your next, that we nnay be aware of our Danger. 2d/j^ May not
one with a very good Confcience both pray againft and praclife
contrary to what the Prince pradifes. I fuppofe the Apoftle P<i»l
did both in his Time, and I fuppofe the Church of England Her
felf did lo in the Time of the late K. 'James, Mr. Hobbes indeed
was a very Learned Man who made the King's Confcience the
Standard for the Confciences of all his SubjeQs, jiiit as the great
Clock rules all the leder Clocks in Town ; yet that Gentleman's
Principles have not been always wellfpokenof: But it fcems Mr.
Rhmd intends to revive them. 5^/7, Has not herMajefty and the
Paritxment Authorized i\\^Y7esbjtertan Government and Worfliip?
And yet do not the Epifcopal Clergy in their Conventicles every
Day both pray and preach againft the fame, and that without any
Fear of Treafon? ^thlj, If the Scots Epifcopal Miniders are fo
chary of Treafon agamlt the Qijcen, why don't they (o much as
pray for her? Why do they skip over that part of the Liturgy
which is defigned for Her.? Tis notourly known that the Gene-
rality of 'em do this.
6. They pray, faith he ibid^ for a Blcffing upon their K^irk Judicj-
tories in the Exerctfe of their Di/ci^li/je, which, in many Inflances^ I
knew to be fcandaloujly partial^ and highly Viju ft. Well. Let US hear
one of thefe Inftances? No. He may perhaps give you that in the
next Edition. But his Bufinefs in this was to /ifirt, Mr. Rhind
pretends to have gone over to the Church of England, What is
the Chara^kr of Hf/* Ecclefiaftical Courts.? It wou'd perhaps' be
thought 111 Nature in Me to give one;' but let us hear the Noble
Hidorian Llarendo'a who has faved my Pains to purpofc. ' I never
' yet, Jaid) He (i ), fpoke with c?w^ Clergy Man, who hath had the
* 'Experience of both Litigations, that hath not ingenuoufly con-
felTed
[ » ] Vol. I. B. IV. p. .24.1.
2*38 Defence of the Chap, IV'^
' ftfTed, he had rather, in refpeB of his Trouble, charge, and Sa-
' tisfaQion to his Undeftanding, have ^//r^e Suits depending in W^^/-
* mhpr Hall, than one in the Arcks, or ar^y Ecclefiaftical Court.
Now tho' UiX. Rhirid cou'd not p'-ay for a BlelFmg on the Kjrk
Judicatories, yet may he not, after thisj with great Freedom pray
for one upon ih^- Church Judicatories? I'm fur e they have much
need of Frayers.
7. They do not^ faies he p. \'^\^\'^2ypciyforthe Vorgivene^ of their
Enemies. And he is fo high upon this, that he aflens, During ^he
22 'Tears I ivas among them, I don^t Remember that ever I heard one
of them (and I have heard fame Hundreds) prej^ it as a Duty, or once
ojferit a Petition to Almighty God, I vi'ifh Mr Rhind had given
us fome better Tedimony than his ov/n; But feeing he has con-
tented himfelf vi'ith it, I think it may be enough to lay Mine in
the Ballance againft it: But then I fhallquahfie it, that it may be
enquired into. I have very feldom Occafion to hear others
preach . I am now writing this upon t!ie Eleventh day of November
171^, The laft Sermon 1 heard preached by another was upon
Thurjday x.\\q 22 of October \&9i. It was preached by yir Alexander
Muir Minifler of R/^^//^?'^/^^ in the High Chore.:: of Glajgowm that
Partofitcommofily c^\\c^i\\tlnner'l<jrk before a NiimeroL's Audi-
ence upon Rev, HI. 15. 16. I declare I never conferrt^d with him
upon the Subjed of Fcrgivenefs of Enemies, either before or fince;
and that he knows Nothing of my intending to pubhfh this Paffage.
He is known to be a Zealous F?'^i^>'^^/'i^», and always was fo. And
now after all thefe Circumftances I declare, and I appeal to the Au-
dience for the Verity of it, that I heard him after Sermon pray in
Terms That God ivr, a Id forgive our Enemies. This i hope is fome better
than Mk Rhind\ Negative, and I pitched on thislnltance, only
becaufe it was at the h^ Sermon I heard. For tho' as I faid, I have
rarely Occafion to heec Sermon from others, yet when ever I chance
to beafiiftanc at the Communion any where, I always hear .<// Per-
fons having M^/^!;^folemnly debarred the Lord's Table, andfolemn
Prayer put up to God for the Forgivcnejs of Enemies, But enough of
this, we may poflibly hear more of it afterwards.
8. Theypray,fmh he p. 1 5 2, for the De(hufiion of their Enemies, How !
QftheirP^^£?W Enemies? Iffo, 'tis a very great Crime j and we
want
Std. /• Presbyterian ^or/j/p; 239
want to have the Criminals named, and the Vouchers adduced. Has
lie done this? No. But, (s-'ithhe, I am ready to c^o it. Was he In
fo gre^thafte that he ccdM not ftay to give fomuch as o^e Inlhnce ?
Gentlemen of the Epifcop^l ?c\ (■■fJ^iCion who have adopted and cherifl:- •
edthis Bookof Mr K^i>;^'s, 1 appeal toyouupon your Honour, Senfe
and Confcience, whether this Vv'as a rational VV^ay of Writing ;
anij whether it is not fcandalous in thelaft Degree to approve of it.
"^Tistrue^ faith Mr /^/;/W^ they pretend to do tbis^ becaufethefe againji
rvhom thijpriy, are Enemies to Truth, and P erf editors ofitsFrofcl^ors ',
Very well. And if th.at Pystence bQtxuo^ are they notjuft in doing
fo? No, faith he, no Pretence can exci/fe ths Impiety of tt. Strange/
Are there not innumerable Precedents for it in Scripture? When God
has prom ifed to coi^'fume the Man of Sin with the Spirit of his Mouth, and
to destroy him with the Erightnefs of His coming II Thefs 11. 8- Is it not
lawfuil, nay is it not a Duty to turn this Pfomife into a Prayer ? To
come yet a litde nearer, did My Rhind never hear of an Addrefs
made by thcScots Prelates to the late ILjames, wherein they prayed
that God would give him the Hearts of his Subjects, and the Necks of his
Enemies (kj. Was not this to pray for the DefiruQion of Enemies
in good Earneftf And can any Pretence excufe the Impiety of it?
But Mr Rhindhd^d. a fecret powerful Reaion for infixing on this
Topick, as will appear by his Enlargement on it. He alledges that
this Pretence and Practice of the Presbyterians argues themoft/c^;?-
dalous Partidiiy&nAvileH Hypocrify. Pray how .? ' Why JaithH,
^ at the fame time rhat they pray for the Dell rucl ion ojforne,^ upon
* Pretence that they pevfecure the Servants of God ; They imme-
« diatcly offer up their mod fervent Addredes for the Prof;xrity
^ oi^ others v^ho are no kfs Ferfecutors, and negleft tooffer up one
* Petition for a//^/>^6V; who have Hgnalized themfelves in Behalf of
* fuch as fuffer for Righteoufoefs Sake. I doubt not but fsveral
Readers may v/ant a Key to this fine Harangue, but I believe I
can fupply them.: By the fome, whofe Dclhuaion the rvesbyteii.
ans pray for, upon Pmg;?^^ that they perfecutetlie Servants of God,
He- means the French King. By the others nolefs Perfecuiors, whofe
profperity the Presbyterians pray for, He. means the Houfeot y^/-
' ' shta,
ric] See Lca:isn.Cxueii.e Numb. 13S8> A». jCSZ.
240 Defence of the Chap IV.
firid, the DukeoF5^w7 and fuch other Poplfh Confederates in the
late War. By the Third Sort whom the Presbyterians negle6l to
pray for, notwithftanding they have fignalized themfelves in Be-
halfof fuch as fuffer for Righteoufnefs Sake, hemeans the King of
Sweden, who pioufly gave DiveiTion tothe /^/fc in Behalf of the
Frerich King : And no doubt the Presbyterians were very Guihy in
notprayingto God for Succefs to him info laudable a 6'ervice. And
now, Good Reader, you have Mr Rhind^s heart, and an account
of that which, beyond peradventure, hecoo'd leaft of all others
digeft in thePresbyterian Devotions. His Book bears Date in the Pre.
face. 6ih December 1712, that is about half a Year e're the Peace
was concluded. It was then an Unpardonable Crime in the Pre-
sbyterians topray for the £//f^« and her -^^//^/, whereas they fhou^d
have prayed for the Fr^;^^/? King and his Alfiftants. I believe there
is no Man that knows any thing of the Hiftory 0^ Lewis's Reign,
but knows too, that Nero^ Domttian and Dioclefiaft were Merci-
full Princes in Comparifon of him; and therefore fuch as wou'd
alleviate his Tyranny and Perfecution by calling the Imputation of
it a Pretence ought no otherwife to be look'd on than as avowed E-
nemies to the Reformed InterelL Andtho' many in Britain and
Ire/and aYQ now bewitched with a Spirit of Infatuation in Favours
of that Tyrant, yet I hope they may one Day have their Eyes open-
ed to fee both their Wickednefs and their Folly. I pray God it
be not too late, and at the Expence both of our Religion and
Liberties. But now as to the Bufinefs of the Prayers, Ho-w often
did Her Majefty declare from the Throne,that the reducing the French
Power was neceffary for fecuring, not only the Proteftant Reli-
gion, but the Liberties oi Europe wj? And was it not lawfullto
pray for Succefs to thofewho joined with Her Majefiy info good
a Work f Andmuft not every good Man in the three Nations
have been fenfibleofthis.'' Becaufe the People of Mr K/^/;?^'s Kid-
ney arecontent to barterReligion, Liberty, and all the moft valuable
IntereftsofMankind, for the dear Enjoyments of Slavery and Su-
perlVition ; was it needful that the Reft of the Nation fliou'd run
mad with them ? 'lis true the Houfe 0^ AuHria^Savoy S^xperfecu-
ted the Proteftanis in Hungary^ Bohemia, Piemont and perhaps
with little lefs Fury than \\\q French King did his Subjects. But
it is as true that the Presbyterians prayed 'for the Perfecuted
in
Scd: 1: Presbyterian IVorJhip: 241
in thefe Places , and againft their Perfecutors , fo far as concerned
the Matter of Religion, in the fame Terms that they prayed for the
perfecuted in Fz-^/^tt? and againrt the Fre^chKing. And 'tis true
alfo they bleffed God for any Freedom was procured to the Pro-
teftants, whether by the King of Suedeft or any other. Bur ftill
they prayed againft the French King,and fodid the Church oi England.
For did not Her Majsfty order Forms of prayer andThankfgiving,
to becompofed by the Bifhops at the Opening and Ending of each
Campaign, for Succefsagainrt him ? Nay did not the Clergy by Di-
re£^ion of the Liturgy (I) pray every day during the War thct
"God WOU*d abate the pride of their Enemies , ajjwage their Ma/ice^ and
CONFOUND their Devices'? And did ever the Presbyterians pray
agiinG: the French King or any Body elfein harfher Terms? And
is it not the Duty of every good Chriilian to pray for the Dedru-
ction of the Power of one who, befides his bloody .Enmity to the
Reformed Intereft, is notourly known to be an Oppreffor of the
Liberties of Mankind? Add to all this, that to my certain Know-
ledg the Presbyterians ufually pray, that, if it be Poflible, God
wou'd give him Repentance, which I hope is a kinder Office done
to him, than to juftifie his unparaliellcd Wickednefs, as fome Or
thers do.
9. He ObjeQ-sp 154 'That they offer up many Nonfe ff peal \}eii'
* tions to God, commit many Blunders zVidTafaologies,trzni^gids the
* moftfundamental Rules of Gr^»^w4f', Rhetorick and Logick, Well,
how does he prove all this? You are not to ask that; he CAN do ir,
and that mult ftand for as good as if he had done it. But how cm
he doit? Why, * theExpence of a Shilling, /<«;V^^^, will procure
* from fome fhort Hand Writer a Copy of one of their Prayers at
* fome of their Weekly Le6\ures in Edinburgh, where one wou'd fup-
^ pofe their Men of beft Senfe did officiate. But why wouM he ha-
zard his being branded as a Malicious Slanderer, rather than go to
theExpence of a Shilling ? However nigardly he isof hisPurfe, it
feems he is abundantly prodigal of his Fame. Befides, when he has
publifhed one fuch Prayer, I hope no Man in his Wits wou'd fuf-
tainthatas aiuft Exception againft the iv^c?/^ Commmnion. There
H h ai^e
C 1 ] See Prayer in the Time of War and Tumults.
242 Defence of the Chap IV;
are no Doubt weak Men among the Presbyterians. But does not
the fame ObjeQionly againft every other Society, tho'againft none
fo:niuch, that lean hear of, through the broad World, asagainft the
£^?^///27 Inferiour Clergy ? ^ The much greater Part_ of thofe ( as the
* Bifhop of Sitmm told us laft Year about this fame Time ) (^m) who
' come to be ordain'd are ignorant \,02. Degree, not to be apprehended
* by thofe who are not obHged to know it. The eafieft Part of
* Knowledg is that to which they are the greateR Strangers ; I mean
* the plainefi: Parts of the Scriptures, which they fay, in Excufe of their
* Ignorance y\h2it their Tutors in the Univerfities never mention the read-
* ing of to them, fo that they can give no Account,or at leafl: a very Im-
' /-f^/^^ one, of the Contents even oftht G of pels. Thofe who have-
* read fome few Books, yet never feemtohave read the Scriptures,
* Many cannot give a tolerable Account even of the Catechifm it felf,
' how fhort and plain foever. They cry and think it a fad Difgrace
* to be denyed Orders, tho' the Ignorance of fome isfuch, that in a
* well regulated State of Things, they wou'd appear not knowing
^ enough to be admitted to the Holy Sacrament. This does often tear
* my Heart. The Cafe is not much better in many^ who having
* got into Orders come for Inftitution, and cannot make it appear
* thatthey have read the ^tr/^^^r^i or any one goodi book (incethey
' were ordained, fo.thatthe/>w4//MeafureofKnowledg upon which
^ They got into Holy Orders not being improved, is in a Way to be
* quite loft. Thus far Bifiiop Burnet, I hope this is fome better
Teftimony than a Copy ofa Prayer, not yet delivered, from fome
Short Hand Writer.
After all this, to make Mr Rhini eafie, I (hall ibgenisofly confefs
how far his Charge may be trueagainft the Presbyterian Minifters,
N either thele of 'em at Edinburgh^ nGf any of 'cm elfewhere are fond
of that which Tillotfon calls Rumbling Rhetorick alias bomb^ft : Nor
are they carefull to make their Sentences run like Blank Verfe, or fall
into a Mufical Cadence, as if they were juft come from reading an
£/;^ ///2a- Tragedy. They don't afFeQ the Engli/h Accent without the
Englifh Phrafe : Nor dotheyafpireto have their Language Soaring
in the Clouds, and their Thoughts mean while creeping on the
Fiat. No,^ they think it fufficient lodeliver themfelves in plain Scotch^
without
C m ] Preface tochcFo;jnli Edicioflof hUlUftPxal Cart.
Scd:. I. Presbyterian Worjhif. 245
without Flights of Fancy or Points and Turns of Wit ; being fenfibb
thatfuch Things are both unfuitable to the Simplicity of the Gofpel;
andbefides, that they wou'd be thrown away onthegreateft Part of
their Audience. For, They don't believe that every one that wears
afineHatorafafhionableHead-DrefsisadeepScholar. They know
: there are vulgar Wits under long Wigs ofcimes, as well as under the
Natural Hair ; and within Silk Scarfs as well ascoarfe Plaids. And
therefore, both in their i:'rayers and Preachings they adapt their
Difcourfe to Men of low Degree ; being convinced of Mr Dryden*i
good Senfe when he faid
That the fir ait Gate tvou^d be made (ir alter yet
Were none admittedthere hut Men ofWit^
All this I confefs, the Presbyterians are guilty of; and let Mr
Rhind improve onitasfaras he ever can. 1 he reft of the Charge
wefhallacknowledge after hearing Probation, which equal Judges
I hope willfulfainasa Relevant Dilator,
10. In the /^y? Place Mr R/?/W obje^^s the OmilTion of the Lor^'j
Prayer. He does indeed bring in this Objedion in his Arguings a-
gainft theMlNMEd of our Prayers; and there we fhall confider
itasan Argument for Forms. But he infifts upon it lil:ewife as
a fundamental Defeth, and therefore 1 fhall confider it here while
treating of the iVUtttr of our Prayers. Now take the Objedion
in his own Words P. 164. * li^ faith he, the Lord's Prayer be a
* Form, which when we pray we are commanded toufe;and if the
* Presbyterians totally nQg\et\ to ufe it as fuch, I appeal to the Read-
* er, whether they are not chargeable with an Impious and funda*
' mental Orniflion; and in Conlequence, whether all who would not
* be involved in the Guilt, or run the hazard of offering up an un-
' acceptable, becaufe an Imperfed Worfhip, jhould not feparatc
{ from them . Thus He. For Anfwer
The Judgment of a Church is to be gathered from her publick
VormuUs, Now in all thefe the Presbyterians own it lawfull to
ufe it as a Prayer. The leffer Catechifm calls it a Form, The
larger Catechifm faies it may be ufed as a Prayer . The Directory re-
commends it to he ufed as fuch. The General Affcmblj 170^ recom-
mends the Oblervation of the Directory. Accordingly ma< y Mi-
nifters do ufe the Lord's Prayer. I nriy ftlf ufe it fometin^es, my
next Neighbour Minifter does the fame. His next Neighbourt'bj.h
H h 2 of
244 Defence of the Cbap, 7/^^'
of 'em Genuine Prf/^m/i;?/ ) ufes it every Lord*s Day. The
like do others in feveral partsof the Nation. 'Tis therefore falfe
what Mr K/;/W affirms, that the Presbyterians iotall/ x\Q^\Qi\ toufe
it even in the very Words thereof. Burthen, to make the Omlffi-
on of it an Impious and Fundamental Defeul, and a mceffary Catifd
of Separation is an uncommon Stretch which hardly any Man
wou'd have ventured on, who has Modefty enough to ftick at a-
ny Thing. And therefore I muft crave Leave to reafon this Mat-
ter fomevvhat particularly with Mr Rhwd. And
In the Fir ft Place I ask. Is Mr Rhind or any of his party fure that
the Lord's Prayer was not mawly intended asaFattem rather than .
a Form, Their Confidence will indeed bear them out to affert
any Thing: Yet Groiius, one of the moft Judicious Criticks the
World has yet known, has cKprefiy faid upon the Place, ' That
* Chrift did not command the WORDS to be recited. But that we
* fliould take the Materials of our Prayers thence: And He gives
this Solid Reafon for it, ' That iho* it may be ufed with great
* Profit as a Form or in the very Words, yet we don*t read
* that ever the Apofiles ufed it fo. Now let us hear what Mr.'
Rhi^d has advanced to prove it a Form, i/, * That it is a Form
' of ifY^yev, faith he^ is hence evident, becaufe it is conceived in
* the fame Manner as other prayers, that is, with Invocation, Pe-
^ titions, Doxology and concluding Jmen, I anfwer it has all
thefe parts in Matthew, but it was twice prefcribed upon different
Occafions, and ^o kith Jofepb Mede hinifelf upon the SubjeO:. And
M'hen it was prefcribed in Matthew^ 'tis plain it was defigncd o^^/y.
ioxd. Patter ?2\ For the Precept runs thus, Jfterthis MaKijer there-
fore pray ye. Therefore the Argument, that it is conceived there
in the fame Manner as other prayers, is Naught ; feeing it was not
//;fye defigned as a prayer but as 2i?atter^, I'llj^ ' WQ2iVQ^ faith
* Mr, Rhind, exprefly commanded to SAY O/^y Father he. But
* it is Nonfenfe to command us to fay a Patterfi, Therefore we
*■ are to ufeit as a Form. Thus he. I anfwer, Mr. R'm?2d\ form-
er Argum.ent defiroys this; For it is in Lukth Gofpel that we^
are commanded to SAY Our Father kQ. But in Luiie\ Gofpel
there- is neither the Doxology nor the Amen, Therefore it is not:
CQuceivedin the fam« Manner as other Prayers, in that place where
we
Stdi] L Presbyterian WorJJjif. 245^
we are bid SAY It. Nay, Gmv//^isofthe Mindthat thcfcClaufcs
Which art in He.xven^ and Ihy Will he done, as in Hedven foin Earth
znd. Deliver us from Evil, were not Originally in Luks\ Gofpell
but crept into it out of Matthexv\, And he gives this Realon for
ir, That the fird Claufe Which art in Hdaven is not extant in the
old Latine Copies. And the Second Claufe, Thy Will he done as
in Heaven fo in Earth, is neither extant in the Old L4f//?e Copies,
nor in fome of the Greek Copies. And it is very falfe what Mr.
Rhind alledges, that it is Nonfense to bid us fay a Pattern : For in
every Language, that I know any Thing of, there are greater
Elipfes ufual than this Jper this Manner or To this Purpofe. And
fo Luke'*s Way of Speaking is very plain, When Te pray. Say viz.
After this Manner, or to this Purpofe. Upon the whole, feeing
the Lords Prayer was at hz^i mainly intended for a Pattern^ which
I hope, is now tolerably evident, 'tis pretty hard to conceive how
the OmiiTion of it as a For?n can be 2i fundamental Defe£t.
In the Second Place I ask Mr. Rhind and his Party, if they
have not obferved, that the Words of the Lord's Prayer in the
Ongina! are not the fame in both Gofpels. In Matthew^ we read
tf^sify u; KM KLceis M^iiiiif T<3(; t:pHXnx,ii r,%'A)i. In Luk^e's tjs inot^Tion yJLtut, »xi pui'
ittnoi kpu,ui, TTx-nt K^HMiTt ny-h. ''j{<^ [jue, our Saviour probably did noc-
fpeak in Greek, But when the Evangelifts have varied fo in their
Wording ofir, 'tis plain that they did not underftand our Saviour as-
meaning to bind them up to Words and Syllables. The like Vari-
ation of phrafe, which I take Noticeof for the Englifjj Reader's Sake,
is ob'ervable inour Tranflation- In M4///;w's Gofpel we read T/^y
Will be done in Earth as it i^s in Heaven, In Luke's Thy Will be done^ as
in Heaven fo irj Earth, In Matthew's G/'i^^ us this Dayour daily Bread.
In LukC'SG/w us Day by Day our daily Bread, and on the Margin For
the Day* In Matthew*s Forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our Debt- ■
ors. ■ In Luke's Forgive us our Sins, for we alfo forgive every one that is-
indebted to us. And which is ftrange enough, thQ Engl/fj Liturgy
varies from both : For thus it has it Forgive us our Trefp.ifis aswe'
forgive them that trefpafs againft us; and in it generally the Doxo-
logy For thine is the Kjngdomhz is wanting. Now after allthis Va-
riety, is it to bethought that we are tyed up to the Form of Words,
OMhat the Omifsioa of them can bQaftindamentalD^k^^ '
24^ Defence of the Chap. IV:
In ih^Third Place. I ask Mr Kto^and his Party, if they are fure,
even fuppofeing it were a p>«;, that the Precept for ufing it was
intended for PUBUCK Worfhip ? I don't now ask if it be /awfull
there, that is granted . But that it was not originally intended for ir,
Iconceive to be fome what more than probable. i/,Becaufe inall
thepublick Miniftrations related in the New Teftament we never
finditufed. 2^/)', Becaufe our Saviour took Occafion from difcour-
fing on/ecret Prayer to prefcribe and give the Command for ir. And
^dly^The Difciplesdid not fher/ look upon themfelves as Minifters, nor
expeded ever to be employed as Officers in the Church ; Seeing, not
only now, but even a long Time after this, yea after Chnft'sRe-
furredion, they ftill imagined that the JemfhFoYity was to continue,
in which thofe of the Family of Levi alone were by Divine Right
Church Officers. Now if it was nor originally intended for Publick
\Worfliip, how can the OmiiTion of \i\x\\^ublick^ox{\-)\^ht2ifunda'
mefiial Dd&ct? Efpecially, when we are fure, that this, which I
have given, was tbeSenfe which the primitive Church had of this
Matter. For ihus Juai^^^i^^f' expielsly dtclaies ^rjj ' ThatChrjfi,
* in the Delivcy of thefe Pcntions, di 1 not teach his Difciples liow
* they fhou'd [peak, or what Words they fhou'd ufe in Prayer ; but
* to whom they were to pray, and what Things they were to pray
* for, when they were in the Exercife oiSecreiov Mental Pvd)tv I
In the Fourth Place, I ask, how can the Eptfcopal Party account
for that Senfe which they have given of the Precept V And how can
they juftifie that horrid DoQrine which they have founded it on ? In
the I (? Place, They make the Senfe of the Precept H'hefj ye pray, Say^
to be, When ye have dommthyour own Prayers^ annex this. This is
fuch an Infipid Glofs, and lo unheard of among the Ancients, that I
admire they are not afhamedofit. We are fure that the Ancients
either ufed it alone, or prefixed it to their Prayers when they uied
it. Thus Tertullian {oj after a large Commendation of the Lord's
Prayer
[ n ] lyiugttjlin. 6e "Mas^idro Cap. i. ^tig. Non re ergo mover Dominvis frimmus Magifter, cum orare
doccicc dii';ipi!los, verba qiixdam docuir, in quo nihil afiud videtur leciile, quani docuifle tjuomodo in orando
loqmoporLcier: O^i^. Nihil mcomnino iltud movet : rion eniin verba, fedresiplas eos verbis docuit, guibiis
«r le ipiicommonelacerenr, aQuo, Quid effec orartdum, cumin penecrahbus, ut diilumeft, mentis orareac.
%Aitji. Refle intelligis.
[ o J Fofle nos ftjper adjicere. Qiioniam tamen Dominus profpeftor humanarumneceflitatum feorfim
pod tradiram orandi difciplinam. Petite, inquit, & accipietis, & funrqua: petantur, pro Circuniftantia Cu-
jufque, pi;tmina it-itima & oruiiiaria oranouc quali lundameuta, acudcutium jus ell ciefideriorum. Jas«ft
fuperllruendi. — DeOratioae f.6j$.
Sed^ L Presbyterian Worjlj}^, 247
Prayer adds, ' We may- add thereunto*. For fin ce theLordthePro-
* vider for all Hunaan Neceffities, has in another Place, after He
* had delivered this Prayer, faid, Ask and yejhall receive : And every
* one has particular Circumftances to beg for, therefore having pre^
* ^>y//'^^ the law full and ordinary Prayer, there is place for accidental
' Requefts. ThiisHe. But whether they prefixed it, or annexed it ;
they had no OT^imon ohhQfundamefjtal Nece[/iij of doing fo ; an infal-
lible Argumentof which is, that we find them frequently praying
without the Lord's Prayer, eitherat the Beginning or Ending of
their Prayers. Thus, as Sir P^r^y /C;»^ has already noted Q) In the
Heavenly Prayer ofP(?/)'<r4r/>/;^j at the Stake, The Lord's Prayer is nei-
ther at Beginning nor Ending. Thus Clemens Alexundrinus con-
eludes his lad Book of P^idagogy, with a Vrajer which neither ends nor
begins with the LordS Prayer ; and Origen {q) prefcribing a Me-
thod of Prayer, fpsaks not a Word of the LordS Prayer ; but ad-
vifes both to begin and end with Doxology, oragivingPraifetoGod,
This they won' d never have done, had they believed that it was
fundamentally mcejfayj to join the Lord's Prayer with their own.
With what Reafon th^nczn our Scots Epifcopalians make that the
Senfe of the Precept? But then 2dly, The Principle upon which
they found this Senfe is a moll horride one : For they affert, that the
jomingit with our own Imperlefl: Prayers renders them acceptable
before God ; as, on the other Hand, the Want of it makes them un-
acceptable. This ;s plain from Mr Rbind^s Words before cited. Now
what ehe is this but to turn that Excellent Prayer into an Idolatrous
Ch^rm, and to makeihe Repetition of it fupply the Place of the Merit
and IntercelTion of our Saviour? I ask now whether the Presbyterian^
Gmiflion of it, or the EpifcopMiarj's Ufage of it upon fuch a Principle
be^the more accountable ? ■
To conclude this Matter. *Tis true the Lrjy^'^ Pr'/ij^r was early
tifed in the publick affemblies of Chriftians .- But it wasnoc ufed
more than once St one Affembly; Not in Prayers bi-fore or after Ser-
mon, not at all in ihQ Catechumen^s Oifice, but in the EucharifticdO^^
lice, and even there they did not apprehend that Chrift enjoined
them
'] Enquiry
J P$ Orat:
ZllPf Oratione S«a. 21. y. 134- 13/,
248 Defence of the Chap. IF.
them to ufethe Words. And thus many others ( r ) both of the
Froteflmt and Roman Communion have underftood it. So much
for the Exceptions againrt the Matter of the Prayers of the Presby-
terkns . Fart of which Exceptions are manifeftly falfe in F/<i^,and
all the Reft of the things excepted againft, Juftifiable, at leaft as
Laivfully and for the moft Part as Duty,
ARTICLE II
Wherein Mr R hind's Exception againfi the Man-
ner of the Presbyterian's Prayers^ is confidered^
From P. 1 5 6. to P. 177.
MR Rh'wd frequently affirms them to be highly Imperfe^ in
this RefpeA. The only Reafon he gives is, that they are
performed in the Extemporary Way, as he exprefles it. For making
this a high Imperfe£liorf, He I. Infiftsupon the huge Difadvan-
tages of it. II. Effays by Arguments to prove the Excellency, if
cot the Neceflity, of the Liturgick Way.
I. He infifts upon the Difadvantages of the Extemporary Way a-
Ciong the Presbyterians^ which he lays out in Three partic\3lars.
The Firft Difad vantage is, ' That a Man is difcharged the xxkoUll
* helps, and is defired to depend only upon the Motion of the Spirit
* p. 157. The Refult of which is, that when one is not blefTed
* with the Gift of prayer, he is tempted to negle£l it altogether ; or if
* he eflay it once, and finds that he cannot perform ittoanytole-
* rable purpofe, he is difcouraged from any furthec Attemptj and fo
muft
• fr] Maldonat.inMutth.^.9. NoH his neceflario verbis, fed hac aut fimili fententia— nam non Apoftolo*
•rando his ipfis verbis ufos fuilTe legimus, aliis legiinus. Neque voliiic Chriftus, ut quotiescunque oramus,
ifta omnia, qua: hac^ oracionc concinentur, peteremas, fed iic omnia, aut aliqua, aut nihil certe his contra-
rium petcrcm. Cufuubon. Exercic. 23 j. Chriftus vero non de predicatiov.e Dei laudiim agir, fed uc re£le mo-
nec ,><«^M;?/;jM/, dc modoconcipiendi prcces privacas. Janfcn InLuc.ii. Itaque ucdifceremusin orarione,
non tarn de verbis, quani de rebus eflcanxij, ac dc fpiritu oratiouis, 4ivcrfis verbii oratio uem tradidic. VidjB
€U/\sonon. Liturgies.
Sed. /. Presbyterian PTorJIjif. 24^
* mud: continue In Ignorance and Trreligion; the obtaining of which
* among the Generality of people, /-a///; /-/f, is in a great Mcafure
' owing to the Want of For^/;s, Or if a perfon grofly Ignorant
' yet adventure to pray, his performance muft be crowded with
* flat- Impertmer^cies^Subftantial Nonferjfe and horrid B/aJphemieF, a\\
' which is unavoidable in the Extemporary Way. To this purpofc
he p. 1 56, 157. Is it pofTible Mr Rhhd couM be 22 Years among the
VresbjterUfis^ and not know'that what he has laid down for the Foun-
dation ofall this, is even atranfparent Falfliood. Was he not fenfiblc
that every one, thatcouM open his Ryes and read Engliflj^ was in a Ca-
pacity to convince him of the groiTeft Calumny and Slander? Do the
Presbyterians Dijckirge theVfe of a/i Hefpsin Prayer either to V/millcrs
or Private Chriftians ? Was not the Dire^ory for the Publick Worfliip
of God compiled on parpofe rogive them both He/p and Fuynitur? ?
(i"^. Is not every Minilkr therein exhorted to be carefull tofur^iflj both
his Heart ^/?^ Tongue jv/V/' farther and other Mater i.ib^ asjhallbe need-
full upon all Occafions1\{2x\i not the General AfTembly given Dire*
^ion$ ( t), and fuggefted Materials {ov Private Prayer? Nay do
they not exprefly recommend Forms of prayer to the Rude and
Weaker fv^ fWhat meant he then to fay , that they are dijcharged
the ufeof dW helps; and defired to depend only upon the Motion of the 6'^/-
y;V? Did he prefume that his party were given up to belitve a Lji"^
With what Confidence cou'd he impute the Stupid Ignorance and
Height of Impiety to the Want of Forms ? Does he not know that in
England, where there is no Want of them, a brutal Ignorance pre-
vails among the Vulgar, and Impieties reign, yet, I hope, unknown
on this Side Tweed, Mr. Rhind has taken a great deal of Pains to
reprefent the Gift of Prayer as an unatainable Thing. But hear
Bifhop Wilkins upon it. * As for the pretended Difficulty of it
* faith he ( x), I fliall in this Difcourfe make it evident, that if it
' be Serioufly attempted (as all Religious BufinelTes ought to be)
* 'tis eafie to be attained by any one that has but commiOn Capaci-
ty. And I fuppofc every Body who has read his Difcourfe is con-
vinced he has made his Word good.
I i The
[ s ] See Preface to the Direfkory. f t ] See them annexed to the Con fcflf. of Faith. Eilnlmrih
?nDtedby J<tmes Watfon 1708. £ v ] Ibid. Sedt. 3, [ x ] GiJc of Pxayer Chap. II. p. i». n.
250 Defence of the Chs p IV.
The ^fcoW Difadvantage o^ Extemporary Prayer is the Danger,
or at leaft the Uncertainty of the Lavv'iiillneTs. of Joining in it. Fcr
y Suppo^Qy Jahh he p. 157, a Man who is Mafter of a tolerable Ex-
' temporary Faculty, is theOiator; yet even in that Cale, before
' he begin, ye are under an Uncertanjty whether what he fhall
* fay be Right or Wron£^ : This keeps the Spirit in Sufpence. Per-
* haps the third or fourth Petition is dubious or uniound, which ye
* cannot offer up to God. Perhaps the next ye hear is flat or Im-
* pertinent, and theretore grateing to a Man of Senfe. To this
purpofs he. Is not this a pretty Way of argning by Perhafs's ? I
need not fpend Time upon fuch Chimerical Stuff. Take the An-
fwer from Bifhop PVdkins in the place laft cited. ' Whereas, faiih
' he^ 'tis commonly objeQed by fome, that they cannot fo well join
^ in an unknown Form with which they are not before Hand ac-
* quaifited. I anfwer, that's an Inconfiderabk ObjeQion, and does
* oppofe all Kind of Forms that are not publickly prefcribed. As
' a Man may in his 'Judgment affent unto any Divine Truth de-
' livered in a Sermon^ which he never heard before ; fo may he
' join in his Jjjeciw?is unto any Holy defire^ which he never heard
' before. If he who is the Mouth of the Reft, fhall through Im-
' prudence deliver that v^hich we cannot approve of, God does not
' look upon it as our prayer, if cpr Defires do not fay Ame'/i to ir.
Thus he. And Nothing cou'd have been faid more patly to the
prefent ObjecHon. "
The T/j/WDifadvantage attending Ejc/f;»/^cy^y> prayer is,' That
'even where there is Nothing amifs in the Matter of the prayer^'
* yet the Hearer cannot at once cKercife that Serioufnefs and 7^—
* tention Vv'ith RefpeQ to God, and that Attsntion which is Ne-"
*■ cellar y to catch what drops from him who prays. Thus Mr.
Khird p. 158. But this is an Objedicn of the fcnie Nature'
with the former; an Objcdion to which His own whimfical*
Im?.ginaticn is both Father and Mother. Tho'MrioyW pretends*
he cannot do both at once. Yet I bilieve every Man elfe in the
World finds it not only poiTible but eafie to do. . When there is
Nothing amifs in the Matter of the Prayer, which is his Suppoiltion, ,
a Man muft be very Glib of the Tongue, if my Thoughts can-
not hold Pace with him; , And the Intenfmfs of my JjjeCfiom will
be
Se(3:I. Presbyterian PVbrJIj/p. 251
be fo far from being a Hinderance, that it will be a Help to the
Mttt^raio» oF my Thonohrs,
But now are not all thefc Imaginary Difad vantages as frequent
and as obvious in the LhuYgkk Way. For what if a Man hnve
not a Common Prayer Book, or cannot read, or has not the Form
by Heart, all whicli are Cafes that moft frequently happen? Mull
he not quite negle6\ Prayer at Home ? And is it not impoflibic for.
him toexercife both Attention and Intention at once when he comes
to Church? Is not the looking upon the Book and reading, a greater
piverfion to the Aftedions than any Thing can be mention'd in the
Extemporary Way? Befides, dees not Mr Rhind, who is fo well
acquaint with the J/;mW Oeconomy, know, that when one is accu-
ftomed to a Form, there is the greateft Danger of falling into Lip-
Service and Formalitj ; and the greateft Difficulty in excrcifing ei-
ther Attentionov Intention ? 'Tis certainly fo. Every Man knows it
,wjlio hastryed it ; and Bifliop WUkins who was a great Philofopher
as well as a great Divine has obferved it (>j. ' In this Cafe, /^/V^ /'£>,
' it fhould be fpecially remembered, that in the Ufe of fuch prefcript
* Forms, to which a Man hath been accullomed, he oughttobe
* narrowly watchfullover his own Heart, for fear of that Ltp-Service
* 2in& Formality^ which in fuch Cafes we are more ef^ecidly QY.i^o'iQ(\
^ unto. Thus He. So much for the/'/"^^^;?<j/^^Difad vantages that attend
Extc^f.forarj ['rayer,v/h^ch I think are pretty real in the Litargick Way.
II. Mr. Rhind effays by Arguments to prove the Excellency of
the Lirurgick Way. And he argues it to be the Beft. Ftrfty Horn
ihe Nature of the Thing. Secondly, From Univerfal pradice.
Thirdly J From the Approbation of Heaven both in the Old and
New Teftament. Fourthly, From the Ufage of the Primitive and
Ancient Church. And Laflly^ From the praQice of the Reformed
Churches. And then he concludes all with anfvveringthe Obje^lion,
that Forms Stint the Spirit.
FirB, He argues for the Excellency of the Liturgick Way from
the Nature of the Thing p. 159, 160. God, faith he, oa^ht to he
rvorfbipped in the besi Manner pojfible, Tis granted. A Form of
VVorfhipy fubfumes he, which always prefappofes Fore-Thought is incom-
parahly better than the Extemporary Way, which rec^uires little or none
I i 2 ^f
C y j Ubi Supra p. 5.
252 Defence of the Chap IV.
at all. Who told him that the Extemporary Way requires little
or ^70 Fore-Thought? Did ever the t^reshjterianstQBchio? Have
they nor in their Direchyy enjoined each Minifter ' to flirr up the
' Gifts of Chrifl: in himfclf, andj by Meditation as well as by ob-
' ferving the Ways of Divine providence and oihsr Methods, to
' furnifh himfelf with Materials of prayer? Does not every Pre-
sbyterian who treats of that Subjcd enjoin the fame? Have they
ever taught otherwife than Bifhop JV/iki/?s h\V[\{<i\^ has taught in
this Cafe { z,) viz. ' That generally it is both lawfull and Necef-
' fary to prepare our felves, as for this Gift in general, fo for every
* particular A61 of it, by premeditating, if we have Leifure for
' it, both Matter and Order and Words .- And that tho'it be a
' Gift of the Spirit, yet it is not to be expe^ed, that it fhou'd fud-
* denly be infufed into us without any precedent Endeavours of our
own. Again how fliall he convince us that the Lttu^gick Way aU
yvays prefuppofes Fore-Thought? 'Tis true it did fo in the Com-
pilers; but it is well enough known that it does not fo in the
Ufers. How often is it feen that while they are crying, Be Mer-
c'lfullto us Miferahle Sinner s^ihty diXQy as a late Excellent Author hath
told us, oglcing their Swtet Hearts in the next pew? And does
EOt every Body feel it, that when they know before Hand what is
to be faid, they are very rarely attentive to it. But let us hear him
proceed. ' If it be Beft, faiih He^ to have the prayer formed be-
* fore I pronounce it, what is the Harm though I tranfcribe it from
* my Memory ? None at all that I know of. Nay^ faith He, will I
t2ot be fo much the more Jure of it, if I do this '^ Certainly, For L/-
tcra hcripta Manet j and the pocket is oftimes a Surer Repofirory than
the Memory. /Ind if Imay fafely mile it , adds He, why not READ
it too? I know no Reaion why he may not, a Hundred Times
over if he pleafes. And yet 'tis very poffible he may all this while
not pyay h once over: For I cannot fee why readi^/g a prayer,
where there is no more, fhould be called /?r4>/>^, any more than
why reading a prophefie fhou'd be called prophef^i^g. But now to
diicourfe this Bufiuefs of Reading pra)ers a little.
£ i j Ubi Supra p.
Sed. I. Presbyterian VForjhif. "^f^j
I ask Mr Rhind where does he find In the Firft place that pray-
ers were Rtad in the primitive Chinch ? Is there the leaft Vcftige
of it for leveral hundreds of years after Chriit? Do not Tertulli^
an^ Llemsfis JiUxiindrii^us^ Cyprian j Arnobius^ LaBtintius ^ Dionjftus
Alexandrinus^ all tell us that the Ancient Chriiiians in prayer lift-
ed up their Eyes to Heaven (rt). Does not C^y>/c7?£)w^ obferve from
Chrift's Pofturein prayer exprefted J^/?/? XVII. i. ' That thereby
* we are taught when we pray to lift up both the Eyes of Body
* and Mind ? Is not the Emperor Cohftarnim reprefented on his Coins
and Medals in a Praying pofture,vet not reading on a book, but
with Eyes lift up to Heaven ( ^ j ? Does not Augufline intimate
as much when he tells us upon /(;/>« XVII. i. that Chrift fo prajed,
as mindi/;g to ttach us how tve fljould praj f Where is now the
Warrant from Antiquity for read//;g prayers? 2dijy Is there any
more Warrant for it from Scripture ? Did the humble Publican,
ilio' in the Temple, Rfad his prayers ? Or did the Pharifec pray
by a Form? Did the Difcij^^Ies, when catched in the Storm, pull
out their Common-Grayer Book, and read the Forms to be ujed at
S^'a ? Did Jonah or the Mariners do it ? Is there fo much as a
Whifpcr of this in the Bible f No indeed . A Senfe of prefent
Danger is worth Twenty Common prayer Books ; according to
that known Saying «Q«/ »efcu Orare dtfcat Navigare, who wou*d
leaifi to pray , let him goto Sea .
And 'tis a plain Cafe, no Man wants a Prayer book who is la
a Frame for praying : And he that is not in iuch a Frame , may
indeed Read Prayers, but I don't think he can be faid to praj.
But let us go on with Mr Rhind's Argument . * If that pray-
* '^v ^ faith he , which I form before hand be betterthan that which
* I utter off hand , then certainly the Form prepared by tlie joint
' Endeavours of Many ( allowing each of them to be ncitherbetter
* nor wifer than my felf ^ is by great Odds prererable to my Tingle
Endeavour. Here Mr Rhind and i difft^r : For 1 hive feldom yet obfer-
vedaCompofureby fever al hands {o well done, asthat wherein ox\\y one
was concerned. And the Reafon is evident j that, which is done by oney
is
[ a ] See Sir Peter Kj,»Z Ubi Supra I'^rc H Cliap. II. Sccl. 3. & CU,\[on ou Liturgies, p. 5. £;t
£ b j Eufcb. de vita Coiiltantim Lib. IV. Cap. ij.
^^54- Defence of the Chap. IF.
is ufually all of a piece; whereas that,wblcli has many hands at the
clcing of it, generally makes but a linfy-woolfy kind of SrufF. Be-
fides, tho' a prayer, formed before hand either by my felf or others
may be more pointed as to its Wording, and have more of a Lo-
gical Method in it ; yet 'tis very poffible that abrupt and inde-
pendent Sentences, breaking from a Contrite Heart, and a Soul
flaming with the Love of .fsfus, may be more acceptable to God
and more profitable to my felf.
From all thisReafoning Mr. Rhind concludes that,?to Torm which
the Church has provided f He means the Englijh Liturgy) has un^
fpeakable Advantages above any one Maii's Performmce But herein
Mr. Rhwd\ Tafte and mine differ as much about the Prefere^ice of
Forms, as our Judgments do about the Vfe of them. For I am
perfedly convinced that the Devojlons of the Author of the whole
Duty of Man^ or Sjmo^ Fatrickh Devotions, or Jeremy Tayhr'*s De-
votions, or even DoringtorPs Devotions are incomparably better
than thofe of die Liturgy^ and I wonder how any Man that has
read both can make the leajl: doubt of it: Pray what fhou'd
make the Eriglifb Liturgy fo preferable V He anfwers^ be-
* caufe it is the Refult of the wifed Council and moil Mature
* Deliberation, the EffeQ of the United Endeavours of Men lioly
' and Wife, who no doubt implored and obtained the A,'?ifiance and
* Diredion of the BlefTcd Spirit, in compileing a Form which tliey
' were perfwaded was the Beft and moft acceptable Manner of
* worfhippingGod. But i(?. Has Mr. K^/V^^:;' confidered howfmall
the Part of the Compilers v/as? They did in 'eed Tack the feveral
Parts together ; but the Materials were formed to their Hand. The
Leffons out of the Old and New Teflament and Apocrypha, the
TJalms to be read Monthly, the Epiftles and Go/pels^ the PafTages
of Scripture at the Beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer, the
Lord'*s Prayer fo often repeated, the Venite Exult emus ^ the Benedi-
£im, the Benedicite^ the ''Jubilate Deo, the Cantate Domino^ the Mag-
vificat^ the Nur*c Demittis, the Deus Mifereatur, the Litany^ the Ten
CommanamentSy the three Creeds, the Te Deum were all of 'em form-
ed long ere the Compilers of the Liturgy were born. The Collects
are generally out of the Breviary, the Prayers in the Standing Of-
fices qut of the Mijjal and Ritual. AbftraQ theie Parts from the
Liturgy, and I luppofethe Compiler's Work will appear to be very
eafie.
Sed /. Presbyterian WorjJjip 255
eafie. 2dly, Why did Mr. Rhwd{'Ay that the Authors of the Liturgy
compiled -i Form which they were perfwaded was the bed andmojl acceptable
Manner ofworfhipping God ? Does he not know that all Hiftory contra-
di£l« this ? They did not fo much as aim at that which was in it
felf hell, but at what the Times could beft bear, with any Colour of
Reformation; and therefore compofed the Liturgy fo as was mod
likely togain the Papip, and to draw them into their Church Com-
munion, by varying as little as well they could from the Romijb
Forms before in Ufe. This K. Edward ingenuouOy told the
Devo/tlb'treKQhQWs. ' Thd* faith He, it feemeth to you a New Service,
* yet indeed it is no other but the old, the felf fame Words in £>^-
' /fj/j th.it were in Latim\ For nothing is altered but to fpeak with
* Knowlcdg that which was fpoken with Ignorance, only a few
^ Things taken out, fo fond that it had been a Shame to have heard
* xh.i^ in Englijjj. Thus He ( c). And indeed the Reformers a61ed
pnudently, according to the th^n Cljcunriftances, in ftriving what
they could, to gain the P^/'i/'?^ : But' togoon in the fame Method
now after a Hunder and Fifty Years Experience of its Unfuccefsfulnefs,
and when *tis plain thir the altering it wculd gain the Dijfenters ; this
Condu^, I mud needs fay, argues a better Memory than a Judg-
ment ; and (h^:wsa mu9h greater Regard to the Popjlh than the T^f-
formedlniQ'^Q^, 3^.//y, What AfliiUnce of theSpirit was it which
theCorapibrs implored and obtain'd ? It was not Affiftance as to'
the Matter. It was not AflTillance as to the Form: For Mr Rhu^d
has expreftyfaid p. 175.^^ oar Prayers are not ditHted by the Spirit
either as to Matter or Form, ■ 'Tis then beyond my Comprehenfion to ■
underibnd wherein they were aiTilied ; For, to fay that they were '■
affiled in tacking the feveral Parts together, were to aiTign too low
an Office to the HolyGhcll.
Itwillnot beunpleafanr, ere Heave this Argument, toconfider"
the Motives which, ^c /l/;iWalIedges, prevailed with the firft Com-
pilers and impofers of the Liturgy, to reftrid^ Miniftersand People -
to the Ufe thereof.
'-They were fenfible, /«///;//<? p. 161, oftheDifadvantages of the '
Extern--
£ c ] Ho:i;^Pf-i'iHilt, Vol. HI. p. 1007.
3-5 6 Defence of the Chap. IF,
' Extemporary Way, even in their own Experience: Theyob-
' ferved moreover, that the Ignorant, that is, the Grofs ofiMankind,
* could notj and therefore did not pray at all; that the Gifted Bre-
' thren and their Hearers too often miliook the Warmth and Quick.
* nefsofthe Fancy, and the ReadinefsofExpreffion for the Dictates of
* the Spirit, which fuelled the former vi^ith a High Conceit of them-
* felves (a Frame of Mind of all others the moft unfiiitable in Devoti-
* on ) and made the latter Lie againft the Holy Ghoft: Befides, they
* found that thisLiberty which Men were allowed,rometimes tempted
' them to vent their New and dangerous Notions, asthelnfpirations
' of the Holy Ghoft; and therefore the Church, to affift the Weaknefs
* of the one, and to check the Vanity and Prefumption of theother,
' reftriQed both to the Ufe of Forms. Thus He.
A very pointed Speech this /But is there the leifi: Footftep in
Hiftory to fiipport it ? Is there the lead hint given that the Com-
pilers and Impofers of the Liturgy proceeded upon thefe Motives?
Nay , is it not certain that they had not thefe Motives to Proceed
on? Were the Extemporize^- s fo early , as that the ill EfFe£^s of
their Extemporizing appeared even before the compiling of the Li-
turgy ? Is it not certain that till the compiling of the Liturgy^
and the Primer that went before it , the People ft ill worfliiped ac-
cording to the old P<?/?//^ Forms? Yes. Every body that knows
any thing of the hiltory of the Liturgy knows all this to be true.
Is it not ftrange then that Mr R^i;?^ fhou'd abufe his Reader with
a whole String of Fi8ions ? I cannot but heartily v/ifli that our
Scots Prelatick Writers wou*d confult one another ere they pub-
lifli their Frodudions : For, if Mr RhinA is right, he has quite
defeat Do£^or South, Mr Calder^ the ktQ Fiftdicator of the funda-
mental Charter, and I know not how many more of 'em, who.
make Fdthfull Cumming and Thomas Heath a lefuite the firft Au-
thors of Extemporary iPrayer in Q. Elizabsth^s Reign, about /ir^»-
iy Years after the compiling of the Liturgy. Plainly, the other
Writers of the party make Extemporary prayer an Invention to
put the Liturgy out of Requeft after it was formed. But Mr.
i^^/W makes Extemporary Prayer to have been firft , and the Litur-
gy to have been compiled and impofed on purpofe to Remeed
the ill Effe£is of it, and to prevent them for the future. Did ever
any party before blow thus cold and hot ? Was ever party fo doom'd,
as
Se<9:. /, Presbyterian Pforjhif. 257
as they are, to contradifl one another ,oi* to blurt out what comes
firft, without regarding what they fay or whereof they affirm?
Some perhaps miy alledge in Excufe of Mr Rhi^jd , that he
meant all this of ihe Scots Liturgy fent doun by K. Charles I. Jn^o
16^7. No . Through all his Book he does not fo much asLncc
mention that Liturgy ; 'the E^jg/iflj Liturgy he does , and fets it
in oppofition to the l^^eftminjler Dire^iorj p . 174. Befides , there
was no need of the Affiftance of the Spirit in compofing that:
For, except in fome things wherein it comes nearer to Vcperj ,and
fome few other things utterly indifferent, it was copied verbatim
from the Efiglijb Liturgy . And as they did not^^f-^^ ,fo ihe Event
plainly fliewed, that they had not the Afliftance of the Spirit either
in compofing or impofing of it. It was impojed without Law by the
Arbitrary Wtll ot the Prince ; and Pm fure the Spirit of God
never affilh Men in illegal praQices . And for the Compofure of
it, 'tis known Archbiihop Lmd was the Father of ic, with thecon-
fent ot fome others no whit better than himfelf And that Com-
mofi Prayer proved indeed the Common fire of both Nations. * Wc
* fhall find them Tthe Bifhops) faith the Excellent Lord FalkU/jd in
' his forecited Speech , to have kindled and blown the Common
' Fire of both Nations, to have both fent and maintained that
* Book *, of which the Author, no doubt, hath long fince wifhed
* with Nero ,Vttnam mfcifcm Literal And of which, more than
* one Kingdom hath Caufe to wiOi, that when he wrote that, He
* had rather burned a Library, tho' of the Value of Ptolem/s,
Plainly the great Intendment of that Book was a Conformity with
EngLwd, by which we were never much Gainers in former Times;
tho' no doubt we /Jm/I be fo , now that we are upon the Footing
of an Vnion ^{0 legally founded , and who^Q Articles have hitherto
been fo facredly maintained. But enough ofthis Argument.
Secondly^ Mr K/?/W argues for the Excellency of the Ltiurguk Way
from Vniverfal Practice. ' It has been, /"^/f/; he p. lOi, undeniably
* the practice of all Men in dl Nations and Ages (it we fliall only
* except thefe who truly were, or falily pretended robe infpired)
* to addrefs the true God, or their fuppoftd Deities, by certain
* Forms. Mr Rhtnd is too pofitive. For as he cannot but know
that this hAi been denyed^ fo, without the Spirit of Frophecy I can
K k . foretell,
25S Defence of the Chap IV:
foretell, It jwY/be denyed to the End of the World. The Pra^iceof
2i\\ Men^ faith he, in all Nations ani Jgc^? Why, /^/,did our fir ft
Parents in the Eilate of Innocence worfhip b- Forms? No Man
ever dreamed it; and I think Miito^i wou'd charm any Body
from the belief of it by his inconiparablv beautifull Lines, wherein he
defcribes their Morning Devotions which they payed to their Mak--
er at the Door of their Bower fa).
Lowly they bonPd adoreing^ Hn^ begun
Their Or'ifons, each Morntrfg duly pay'*d
In various Stile^ for neither %>arious Stile
Nor Holy Rapture wanted they to p^aife
Their Maker, in fit Strains prohoufic*^ or Sung
Unmeditated^ fuch prompt Eloquence
Flo\v*d from their Lips in Prop or Numerous Verfe
More tuneable than needed Lute or Harp
To add more Sweetnef s. ■—-"•'-
This was the Original Pra^ice, and 'tis to that we ought to afplre.
cidl)y Did any of the other Antediluvian Patriarchs Worfliip by
Forms? JSJot a Word of this in ihe Scripture, and that is the on-
ly Book which gives us the Hiftory of that Time. 'Tis indeed
faid Gen. IV. 26. Then began Men to call upon the Name of the Lord,
Bat, waving other Senfes of that T^Kt, Bifhbp Patrick tells^'us,
that a great Number of the Jewifh Writers, with whom M. SeU
den joins in his De D/js Syris, and the Arabick Interpreter expound
it thus Then was there Prophanation bj invocking the N-irne of the Lord
viz.hy^ giving it impioiifly to Creatures. Whether that be the
exad'l right Senfe and Tranflation or not, is not to our prefent lur-
pofe, yet thence we may gather that 'tis impoffible-ever to ham-
mer a Liturgy out of it. . 3^/}, Did Abraham^ Jfaac, Jacob, or any
other down to Mo/es ufe a Liturgy or worfhip by Forms? No.
There is not the leaft Intimation thereof in the Scripture. Here
then we iind 2000 Years, that is, the third part of the World's
Age fully fpent, without fo much as a Hint c^ Forws, How then
cou'd it be the Pra8ice in all Ages to worfliip by them? Yet
further ^'My, Is. there any Hint of Forms for the Space of five
Hundred
(; d J Paradii'e Loft Bock V. 1. 14.^^
Scd:. I. Presbyterian TVorjhif. 259
Hundred Years after i//^. from Mofes to DavW> 'Tis true we read
of a Form of Words ufed upon fomc Solemn Occafions, fuch as
the Prieft's hlciring the People Numb.Wl, and the Thankfgiving
"at the OiTe.ingof the Firfl: Fruits Deut. XXVI, and when the Ark
w^ent forward or.reiled Numb,yi.. But, that there was a ftated
Form for their Dally Service^ there is a deep Silence in the Scri-
pture; which is a certain Argument that there was none, feeing
the Scripture is fo minute in obferving Particulars of much lifs
Moment. 'Tis hardly to be thought that the Scripture, which no-
ticed almoft every Pin in the Tabernacle, and every Fringe and
Plait in the Prieli's Veliments, wou'd have omitted the Form of
Words to be ufed in the daily Service, if any fuch had been pre-
fcribed.
As there is no Mention of any Liturgy among God's Peculiar
for fo long a Time, fo, I believe, 'tis as plain that there was none
uied eifwhere. Ho^/^^r in his Iliad is the moft Ancient, Authentick
and Judicious Witnefs extant of the Devotions of the Pagans both
Greeks and Birbdriam, Fie hardly ever brings forth his Heroes to
fight, or leads the Armies into the Field, but he fets them a Praying ;
and indeed he makes Them pray very well according to the then
Theology, Yet he never makes the particular prayers of the Heroes,
nor even the publick Prayers of the Army fuch as any Form di-
re^ed, but fuch as Their prefent Circumftances fuggefted : And
Homer knew the Rules of Decorum better than to have made Them
pray Extempore, if it had been the thenCuftom to pray by Form.
Thirdly, He argues for the Preference of the Liturgick Way
from Heavefi^s Approbation of it both under the Old and New Te-
ftament p. 162. Well where is this Approbation to be found. ' Why,
< Jaitb he, what elfe are the greateft Part of the Pfdms but Forms
' of Prayer and Praifes, which were compofed for, and ufed in the
< Service of the Temple? Right. And the Presbyterians makeufeof
them to this Day in their publick WorQiip as much, perhaps more
than ever the 'Jews did. So that thus far we aiefor Forms as much as
they. And 'tis a moft horrid and grofs Calumny, th.tt ihe Prebbyte-
rians afirt the Vrtkwfulmfs of fa Forms, '^ 1 dc five the Reader . j^ ^
to advert to this, becaufe, not only iVir Rhind^ but his whole
Fellow Writers eharge them with it, without fo much as offering
K k 2 at
2 6o Defence of the Chap, IF.
at Proof ofit. The reftriBing either Minifters or People to Forms,
to pray lb and 'r?o othermfe, they a'^ow to he impious Tyranny : Bur,
that Formsarein themfeh^esunlawfull, they never ?>iTcrtcd.Befides,
it is ridiculous to argue from infpired Forms to HuindnCompoi
fures. ^»r, adds Mr Rhmd^ /^^ Jews uj^edForm^ oftkiroiv»Compo-
Jure in the Syn2igogUQy where our Lord was fo cften frefenty and yet he
mver declared again ft them. But i/, Why did not .Vlr A///W point
us to where thefe Forms might befound? There is not the leafl:
Mention of them in the Four Gofpels. The curious^ faith he, maycon^ ■
fult them in the Origin at HQhxQ^^ or as they are tranflated into the more
known Languages. But why did he not name the Book? Every Bo-
dy knows that many of their pretended ^w/V»;Formsof Devotion
are meer Forgeries. And their M^^^r^; Forms are ridiculous in the
la ft Degree. 2^//, Why has he not proved that thefe Synagogue
Forms wtVQimpo(ed^ and that fuch as officiate WQtQ re (Iricfed to
them? Without this his Argument fignifies nothing. 3^/j, Was
every Thing lawfull which our Lord did not declare againft? By
the Law of God the High Priefthood was fixed in theeldeftof^4rc?;*'s
Family. In Chrift's Tim.e it w^sfet to Sale in the moft mercenary
JManner. Oj^^/^r/j was both Sacrilegious and an Ufurper. But where
did Chrift declare againil either the Perfon or the Pradice? But^
urges he, Chrift himfeifpre/crihd a Form^ which is a precedent, whereas
for the Extenporary Way there is neither Precept nor warrantable Example
in the Scripture. Is not this ftrange Confidence ? Are there no Ex-
amples of Prayer in the new Teftament but the Lord'*s Prayer ? Is there
the leaft Hint that-any f)/?^ of them was made by a Form? Is there
theleaft Hint that the lo/^'/ F^-^j^r it felf was ufed as a Form ?
Does he think none of the Prayers in the New Teftament v/ere
warramae^le ? Let him find, if ! e can, from the Beginning
o{ Matthew to the End of the Revelatioji^ fo much as any one
Prayer made by a Form, and I'll quit him the Caufe? Even the
Lorci'sPrayerx'i {q,\\ when it was prefcribed by Chfiif, yet was not
put up to God byH/w; nay indeed He could not put it up to
God, He could not fay Forgive us ouriiins^ beeaufe He had no Sin
to beforgiven. And as for His Prayer in the Garden, will any
jN-ian fay that Chrift followed a Form in it ? Nay indeed is not
an Agony incompatible with a Form ? A Form is too coid a Kind
of
Scd: h PrcshytCYim PVorJhip: 261
of Service for fucha violent Exercife of the Soul. Befides, it is
certain that Chriil did not thrice repeat the fame Prayer in the
fame very Words. Nor does the Scripture aTert any fuch Thing,
as has been lately made out {e) bi^ond PoflTibilityof /^eply . And
to make an Argument for ftated and prefcribed Forms, asMr R/jind
does p. 1 7 3, and his Brethren commonly do, from the Apoftiesufing
frequently the fame Form of BlefTing, is below even Meanefs itfclf.
The Apoftle P^///himfelf does not always ufe tlie very fame Words
anxl the Apoftles Peter and Joh» differ in their Words both from him*
and from one another. Suppofe they had all three ufed the fame
Words always, it cou'd not h^ve fo much as the Semblance of an
Argument for a Liturgy.
Fourthly^ He argues for the Luurgkk Way from the Ufage of it in
the Primitive and Ancient Church. Certain ftated Forms^ faith he p.
i66^beirjg thtn uoiverfsliy ufedin the imfi foltmn Adminijirations. It
were fome Comfort to have to do with an Adverfary who atleaft
fretended to Proof; but,tobe obiidged ftill to'difpute againftmeer
Affertion, is the moft irkfome Thing in the World. Ou^ Efifcs^
/^/Liturgills, aconfiderable while ago, gave Ad^uertifement to the
Nation (/) that they were to reprint a Body of Liturgies, to
fliew ( i keep their own Words j that in allChurches and Ages of
ChriHia'/iiij Liturgies have been ufed. They were inflantly taken up
on this (g) and defired to begin at the Right End, and to publifli
the Liturgies of k\\q three fii ft Centuries, which wou'd be a more
prevailing Argument with the Presbyterians, then the Liturgies
of trn Centuries tmmediavly back from our felves can be. But No-
thing of this iiave they done, And! am very well riTured it cannot
be done. They are fo far from beingable togiveus the Liturgies
of 4// Churches, that Iheredefy them to give us the Liturgy of
anyomChMxch. through the Broad Earth during that Period. But
this is the ordinary Politick of the Writers of that Side, to gull their
Lay Friends with Promifes of what every Man in the Work), who
knows any Thing of thefe Matters, knows to be impolTible to be
performed. Certainly the Lord's Supper is the moft Solemn of all
the Chriitian Acjminiitrarions ; and \i prejcribed Form had bien ufed
any
[ e ] See CMer'i Am to :iie I Dulog-ie cxamin'd p. j-J. 37, [ t J S-Ot) Coarant N'
[ g j £ee Letter to a Friend concerning M.^rt/if/ 'a RemJrri. p. ij. •
rib. 10?-.
2/^2 Defence of the Chap. IV.
any where, they wou'd be moft likely to be found there. The
Liturgical Party then is defired, as they value the "Reputation of
their Judgment or Learning, and as they wou'd not be held for
meet Qi-iacks and Mountebanks, topubliCh the /'r^/c^'/^^'^' Forms that
were ufed in the Adminiftration of the Lord's Supper for the firft
th/ee Centuries: Nay, to make their Task eafiev,' to prove that
there were prefcrikd Forms ufed in the Adminiftration of it. In
the mean Time let the Reader fay, what uaparallel d Confidence it
was in Mr Rhir^d, ioho2i^ Q^ univerfalVfa^e^ and yet not to adduce
fo much as one fmall Inftancefor the Proof of it. But there is a People
in the World that make Lies their Refuge^ and therefore we are not
to wonder at it.
Ldi//)f, He argues from the PraQice of the Reformed Chmch^s p, 167.
It is very true the Reform.ed Churches have their Limrgies. But I
have already ^ proved, that the 5cr)r^ were not rsftriOed to Kj/ox'^s
Liturgy, but allowed to ufe their own Freedom. The Like is plainly
obfervable in the Belgicky French^ Geneva, and German lAimg\ts.
Nay fomeoftheforreign Liturgies are not fo much Li//z^^/w as Dire*
tfories. Such is the Liturgia Tigurina publifhed by Lavater . The
Reformers found it neceffary in the Beginning of the Reformation,
both upon the Account of People's Ignorance, being newly come
out of the Popifh Darknefs, and upon the Account of their having
been accuftomed to Forms^ to continue on in the fame iMethod of
Worfhip; and Things not being yet come to aSetlementin England^
and the Clergy being exceeding weak, C^/^/> in His letter to the
Prote[for advifed a ftated Form of Prayers: But that, vi'hen Things
are brought into a regular Channel, and the Church furnifhed with
akle Mintfters^ They fhou'd yet be bound up from praying to God as
His Spirit fhould dire£l them, and as the emergent Neceffities of
their People might require, the Reformers never intended, CWw«
never advifed. On the contrary, immediatly after he has advifed
the Pr^j/^i^or to fettle a ftated Form of Prayers ; he excites him, by
all Means to feek out for able Minifters, that fo the Native Vi-
gour of the Gofpel might not languifli through Occafion of that
Poli-
• See before V. 8.
Seftl, Presbyterian Worfljip. 265
Political Setlement (h). So much for MrR/;/W*s Arguments for the
Liturgick WijY, which this Nation, I'm fure, has no Reafon to be
fond of, when 'cis remembred that we never knew in earncft, from
thefiiii Dawning of the Reformation, what War, Confufion and
Bloodflied meant, till a certain Headftrong Party wouM needs im-
pofe it upon us in an Arbitrary Manner, and red rid"^ the Nation
to it, not only without Reafon or Argument, but even without
Shadow of Law.
He proceeds next p. 1698CC to anfwer the Objection againft re-
ftrifting People to Formt viz. that they Htm the Spirit. And in Anfwec
to this he ablolutely denys that the i>pirit of God dilates the Substance
and Manner of Prayer, A r3o£lrinehiMierto,I believe, unheard of among
Chriftians. For, it is one of the peculiar Titles of the Holy Ghoft to be
ftiled the Sftr it of Supplication^ becaufeofihatfpecial Influence which
He hath in the bellowing of this Gift. And as a Spirit of Grace
and Supplication He is promifed Z^ch, XII. 10. to all God^s f'eople.
And GaL IV. 6. it is given as the Chara^er of all true Chrilfians
that God hath fent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts crying
Abba father. But Mr Rhind does not find this Gift Viz,, ihe Spi^
tit of prayer enumerated I Cor. Xil. among the other extraordinary
Gifts which were bellowed upon the Church at fenfecofl. No
Wonder truly. For it is none of the extraordinary Gifts, but what
every good Chriftian, without Exception, is endued with. Nor
did ever any Min ( before Mr Rhind ) that woriliipped the true
God, fince the Creation of the World deny, that ever there was
any good Prayer which was not fuggelted by the Spirit of God.
But why do I fpeak of the Worfhippers of the TRUE GOD?
Even the Pagan Idohrers had a better Senfe of Religion thm Mr
Rhind, Thus Homer in hi? ninth Iliad brings in old thc^nix Preach-
ing \.o. Achilles.
Prayers are the Daughters of Jlmighty Jove, Upoa which Madam
Dacier comments thus. For ^lis God infpires Prayers^ and teaches Men
to^Pray,, 1l[\q Apoille PW ailirts exprefly Rom, VIII. 16. That
. we
[h] Sicigiuir ftarum efTe Catechifmiim oportpr, ftitam facramentorum adminiflintionem, publxam irem
piecum formulam. Sed non hj: cd peitiiiec uc iflius politici ordinis in Ecclefia a-.c$f;oi;e, vigor illc nacivus rr«-
dicationis Evangelij uUo modo confsiTefiar.- In ilKiJ p Jtius incumbendum e.k libi, ui iddoci & fonoriJJacfi-
naporesconquivaniur. « — Ca/v. Ep. ad protect. iAn^li*.
2^4 Defence of the Chap IV.
we knew not what we fbould pray for at we ought: But that the-^pirit helpeth
our hji?mities a»d maketh Interceffton for us with Groans that cannot ke
uttered. But if, according to Mr Rhind's Do8rine, the Spirit di-
lates neither Matter nor Words, neither Subfiance nor Manner of
Prayer, how can he bQ (M to help our hfirmities? Mr Rhind faw
how crofs this Text lay to his DoQrine, but,to avoid the force of
it, he puts fuch a Comment upon it as w^s never heard of before, fucK
a Comment as is heretical in the higheft Degree,nay fuch a Comment
asfubverts the very Foundation of the Gofpel. Plainly, he affirms
that Men's Fervency and Sincerity in prayer is the fole EffeQ of their
own Endeavours: And that the Office of the Holy Ghoft is not to
excite r<9, oraffift /;? Prayer, but to interceed /^^ the y^er^^/'f^/?^^ of it.
That I may not be thought to aggravate Matters, take his oun
Words p. 170. 171. - ^
* And if^^^ Spirit helpeth our Infirmities ^ it is fuppofed that we do
* fomething our Selves, and that whatever is wanting to make
* our ^v^yQxs accept able, i\\2iKy and that ONLY the Spirit fupplies.
* Now, that the Spirit diO^snot furnifh the Matter ot Words o^oui:
* prayers, appears from the very Text, where we are told, that the
* Affiftance which it aflPords, is its /^/^rr^,^^;?, which is not ma'dein
* Words, but with greanings that cannot be uttered. Thus You fee
* this Text isfofar from ferving their purpofe, that it rather proves
' againft them ; feeing it plainly fappofeth that Men ufe their Endea-
* vours; Now what Endeavours can they ufe, but to prepare the
* Matter y to reduce it to a Fj[)rm^ and to carry along with them as
* much Fervency 2i^d^ Sincerity as they can, AND THEN THE
' HOLY GHOST DOES IN AN INEFFABLE MANNER
* INTERCEEDFOR THE ^CC£ PI JA^C£ OF THE WHOLE.
Thus he.
Here is Dodrine for Chriftians with aWitnefs. Fir^ an ab-
folute Denial of all Internal Operation of the Spirit of God in us;
not only in Oppofition to the Scripture, which he appears to have
no Regard to ; but in direft Contraditiion to the Englijh Liturgy
which teaches ^ that all Holy Dtftres proceed fom God. Secondly^
An inverting the Office of the Perfons in the Sacred Trinity, by
making
Second Colleiliac Evening Prayer.
Sed^ /. Presbyterian Worfloi^. 265
making the Holy Ghoft our Mediator for Acceptance inftead of Chrift,
HearDr iVht:hy on the forecited Text. ' The Spirit of God, /t/7^
*■ He^ isfaidto mierceed for us, not as an Advocate ox Mediator be-
' twixtGdJ^and «/, that being the office ofourgreat High Prien:,
' but asan Exciter or D/r^c/orof us in our AddrelTcs to God, to ten-
* der them for MATTER according to the Wni of God, and fof
* MANNER fervent and effectual. Thus He in a peremptor Con-
tradition to Mr Rhind^ Douirine. To Dr Whithy let us join Bi-
fliop I'Vilkifis (/) *" The Spirit of God, faith he, mult be our Guide
' and A(hliance in this Duty. He mufl help our Infirmities and
' make InttrcelTion for us. Not that the Holy Ghofl is our Mediator
* of hntrceffion^ that is properly the Office of the Son, who isihere-
* fore rtilM our Advocate, There is one Mediator betwixt God and
* Man the Man L'hrtft Jtjus. ' lis He on/j that in Refpe^t of His
* Merits and Sufferings does make Interceflion for us Rom. VIII. 54.
* But now, becaufe the Spirit of God does ^jcm^ ourHearisto pray,
* and trjfufe in us Holy Defires, jlirring us up /o, and infructing
* us i« this Duty, therefore he isfaidto inter ceed for us. Thus he,
And thus all the Chriitian World ever taught.
And thus now I have laid out this Particular with all Fairnefs.
^ Mr Khind?s Doclrine is evidently Heretical and fubverfive . ^^ g
of the Gofpel: And I lay it before the Efifcofal Clergy for
their Cenfure. If they fhall in a publick Manner difown it, it is
not to be imputed to them, nor any more Noife to be made about
it. Butifnot, they muftexcufe us, if we look upon them as Abet-
tors of the avowed Enemiies of Chriftianity.
Whatever elfe Mr Rhind has advanced on this Head is like the Talk
of a Man troubled with a Delirium. Such asfrliy ' that Means are
* ufelefsifour Prayers be immediatly infpired^ and that they ought
* to be regiftrated among the infallible Didatesof the Spirit which the
* Modern Prophets pretended to. p. 171, 172. For, iht^reshjterians
neither do,nor ever did pretend to an unerring DiQament of the Spirit
in their Prayers,but to fuch gracious hijuftons^ Excitatiofis and Dtrt6ii'
ons^ intheUfe of Means, both as to \)\^ Matter and Ma/jnero^our
prayers, as wehave )ull: now heard Dx Whitby and Bifhop IViikins
pleading for. And as to the Modem ?rophetSj he ought, out of Refpedl
L 1 10
[ i J Ubi fupra p. 4, j.
266 Defence of th Chap JFi
tohisown Party, to have been filent about them, feeing all their
Profelyts weregain'd from the f/'^/<:^/.'?/ Side, according ro the heft In-
forn^ation I can have. Of the faaie Naujre is v. hat he fays. 2/i/>, ' That'
* thQ?reshjter/a-fjs canhsiVQ no I'iiletothc ii iiuencesoftiie Spirit,
' becaufe they haye departed from the Communion ofthe Church p.
172. I hope indeed there is no ^resh^nna^ whhm the Communion
of Mr R/;/^/^'s Church. For, to deny the AfHibnceofthe Spirit as to
the Matter and Manner of our Prayers, making them the Fruit of
our own Endeavours allenarly ; and to affign to the- Spirit the
Office ( whichisC/?r/yi('specuhar; of/?/fW/;?^ with Gcd Tor his Accept
tame ofour Prayers ; is, I affirm, fuch execrable Do8rine, as isincon-
fiftent with the Poffibility of Salvation, if continued in. To as good
Purpefe is what he adds. 3^/y, ' That the Presbyterians praife God by
' certain Forms, without Regard to the ftinting of the Spirit, when
' 'tis undeniable that the Spirit can as freely didate Pratjei as Prayers^
* and Metre 2ls well as Profe, p, 175. Right, he can dofo. And has he
not dilated the Matter of the Pfahis'^ And does he nor affiff as to
the Manner , I mean, with FtrvencyzniS Si/jcerity in finging 'em ? And
is not every Miniiler in his Congregation \tk at Freedom to pitch
upon fuch a Portion of 'em, for the Spiritual Solace of his People, as the
Spirit of God, in the Ufe of rational Confideration, fuggefts to him
to be molHuitable to their Cafe? Here is all the Freedom was
ever pleaded for by the P reshjttrians. Whereas by the Liturgy Mini-
ilers are obliged to fuch particular ffalms according to the Day of
the Month appointed by the Book, how unfuitable foever they may
be to thepref nt Cafe of the Congregation. 4^^/;, He wou'dknow
of his Adverfaries what they underlfand by (lifting the S^ijr it, p. 17^.
He had Reafon indeed to ask them, becaule'tis very plain he himfelf
knew not. lean impute it to nothing but Vapours, that he imagines
they conftitute the Spirit of Prayer in a Freedom of Changing the
fhra/es^ andtranfpofty/g the Petitions, But I fhall explain the Mat- ■
ter to him by fome few In ftances which may make ic eafily under-
ftood. A Minifter,! fhall fuppofe, is to meet with his Congregatit>n
for worfliipping God. Before he comes forth to them, he has taken
Pains to get his 6oul imprefled with a deep Senfe of the particular
Sins and Wants of the People committed to his Charge. When he
iscome to Church; according to the Presbpenan^Slzy^ he is at Free-
dominPrayer to break out into a particular CoofelTion of their Sins
with
;Se61:. J. Presbyterian PVorJJnp. :i6'j
whh their p.irilcu/ar Aggravations; and tomakea pirtleaUrRcprc*
fentarion of their Cafe before God, and to ufe fuch pleadings with
liim for rhtm, as are warranted or precedented in Scripture in the hke
Cafe. I'his ib furely the moft realorjuhle Servtce^vc\o^ accceptable to God,
and mofthkely toaffuct&edifie both the Minifter and People. Bnton
the other Hand, by the Liiurgick Way a Minifter muft not fo muclias
vetitureon any Thing of this, but is obhged ro content himfelf with
that dry and p^wm/ Confeflion which is in the Book, and that un-
der 2i\\^\\Q ?^\nsoi NoMonformity, which, how heavy they arc,
many Thoufaiids have fek, in the Ruin of all their Worldly Con-
cerns. Is nor this a Stinting of the Spirit with a Witnefs.
CaNt is a Teroi of Reproach, which the EpfJcopal/a»s f Mr Rhi»d too
among thertil p. 190. 197.) never fail to twit the Presbyteriar^^swiih.
This tfiey mi prove fo mightily iipon, that if fome Young Fellow
of 'cm, when fetting out into the World, have pick'd up that word
any where at a Converfation over a Bottle, the empty Thing con-
cludes hnnfelfftock'd, and ftrait Commences both fVit and Atheift
upon It; and thencetorth pronounces all ferious Piety efpecially the
Vresbjterim prayers to be CANT; becaufe forfooth, there was one Mr
Cam once a l^reshpertAn Minifler at Aberdeen, I confefs it is not
through any Defect of Duncery,any more than of Debauchery, that
they talk at this Rate. Cant is truely a Term borrowed from
the Begging Trade. When the idle feigned Fellows are got into,
and Chime over to every PafTenger, a Rote of Words, not which
the fenfe of Want fuggefts; but which thty have contrived and
Conn'd tor their purpofe. This is indeed Lunt^ and there is too
much Caufe to impute this to the Liturgick Worlhip, where they
ftill Tone over the felf fame thing the lelf fame Way, whatever
Difpofition they find their,Souls in. But on no Account can it be
charged on the Presbyterian Way, even in Ssr/fe much lefs in 'Jitflice :
For k is their C^/^ and their Want which is their Prompter ; and
they think it a ridiculous thing to be obliged to Beg by Rule ^.
Yet further, thit I may make Mr K/;/W underftand what the Fre-
L 1 2 sbyterians
' Men' movent quippe, ct Cantet fi YJuuf/-,gtts af<em
Trotulerim? Canta;, cum fraiftt te in trube ^letum
Ex humero fortes. Verum, nee nocte pU'.itum
Phrubit, qui me volet incurvafse qu/treU-
^ ■' ^ Ters. Stt. I. L. !t.
2-58 Defence of the Chap. IV,
sbyterians mean by//>//>^ the Spirit^ I fl^ali fuppcfe the Minifter
has read the Morning Praters \nihQLitur^y'^j\&. h's Congregation;
and now he intends to Preach to them . \b it not jeofopahle that,-,
ere he begin, he fliould put up a p^y.kuiat ptrition tor Afiiftance,
tohimfelf in fpeaking, and to the people in hearing? There is no
fuch petition in the prayers wh:ch he has le^d ; and if he ven-
ture upon a prayer of his own ; ftraitall theH^///>£'Mare on his
Back, and Dr South tells him, ( kybat it is aSe^jJeUfs and ah fur d />m-
d Iceland that the Canons and Conftitutions of the Church are notrefpon-
fib (e for it ; And he fliall be fure not to efcape without being
branded for a Puritan. The f-ime will bis F^ic be, if headventure
to pray over his Sermon /«//^r he has preached it. H'^e heart tlj deftre
(^faid the Eleven Billiops and the other dignified Clergy at the
Savoy Conference) r/j, that GREAT Care may be tahn to jupprefs
thofe private Conceptions of prayer BEFORE and AFTER Sermoh{ni), .
Is not this to dint the fpirit. Are ^fwr^// petitions eno'jgh, as Mr '
Rhind wou'd perfuade us p. i74.when we are called to be particu-
lar ?If fo, theni propofe this prayer as fuiEcient for the whole. Al-
mighty and Merajiill God, we beg th:Lt Thou may give us whatever ihoti ,
knowefl to be neceffary and convenient for us^ through fefus Chrtfi our
Lord^ Arnen, Til undertake, this prayer is as comprehenfive, not only
as^?y,buteven as^//the prayers ot humane Compofure in the Liturgy :
Yet who wouM endure to be rcftriBed to fuch ^General? Yet further, ..
U'hen People are reffrided to the Liturgick Way, not only necejfary Pe-
titions are omitted, but they are oftimes forced upon Petitions which"
are either abfurd in themfelves, or againft which their Confcience
recoils, fo that they cannot put them up in Faith. To give an
Ip.danceor two, When the Prince oi Or^/?gf landed in England 1688,'
'{is very well known the Body of the EyrgUfi Clergy favoured his
Attempt, yet for ieveral Months after, they not only were obliged
in Law, but aQually did pray for K. James^ begging in the Words
of the Liturgy, that God wou^d confound the Devices of his E/nemies,.
Once more. When Prince George of Denmark Her Majefty's Hu-
sband was dead, die Clergy continued as formerly to pray lor IfTue
to
[ k j Scrm. Vol. 11. on Ecclef. Y. s. [ 1 J See eke Conference p. jj. [ m J See fecond
Dialogue on the Luur^ p. d. 7.
Sed. J. Presbyterian TVorfljip^ 2^0
to her Majsfty, till tint Claufe of the Littdroy was dlfcharged by
an Order of the (.'^//w//. This is no Secret, for we had it in the
Publick News Prints. Were thefe Petitions either reafonable or
decent? I hope by this Time Mr. Rhwd underftands what the
Prtbbyterians mem, when.they fiiy the Spirit is /lifted by Forms.
'yfhiy. He Objetls p. 174. that ' if the preparing the Subftance of
' a Prayer docsy///// the Spirit, then are they who are obliged to
* follow the IVeH^^nrjpr DireBory^ no lefs puilty than they who ufe
* the L/^wT^)/ of the Church of fi/i^g/^;?<5/. 'Tis anfwered. No Man
is obliged to follow the W^jlmi^jfter Dire^ory fo clofely, but that lie
may leave out fome of the Petitions mentioned in ft, or infcrt others
as in prndence he fli.^11 think meet. Thus It felf direfls, * We
' judge this to be a Convenient Order, in the Ordinary publick
'Prayers, vet fo, as the MiniCler m:iy defer /^asin prudence he
^ fhall thirk meet) fome part of thefe petitions, till after his Ser-
* mon, or off.r up to God fome of the Thanklgivings hereafter ap-
' pointed in his prayer before his Sermon. And as to the very
Weds in the DireUorj^ the Minirter is not at all re(tri6ied to them,
but only /o ddl upon the Lo^d to this Efjti:t. Bur Mr. Rhind was re-
foh^ed to be rhroii^^iioiit Chim,erical. La[tlf, He objetls p. 176.
'that all j^iiblick Prayers are unavoidably Forms to the Congrega-
*'tion, and therefore ftint the Spirit ^s much as any Ltturgy jn the
World. Senfekfs Stuff/ The people meet in the Congregation not
to offer upthciir own Separate Prayers, but to join with the MiniOer,
U'ho is their Mouth to God in prayer^ as he is God's Mouth to them
in PreAchln^. There is then Nothing required of them, in that Cafe,
but Fervency and Sincerity in joining with the petitions that are
put up forthtm; nor does the Spirit operate otherwife, inthatCafe,
•than to help them to fuch Sincerity and Fervency, not at all tofug-
geli 10 them Prayersof their own diftind from the publick Prayers.
Thus now I have gone through Mr. i^/;/w^'s Argumerts- which
tho* conttmpnble in the laft Degree, yet are not only the hff^ but
indeed the whole of what the party have to offer. They are either ig-
rorant ofjOr willfally miftake the fresb)teria» principles concerning
prater, and then ioftead of difputing ^gainff them, they difpure
a^ainrt iheir own Frantick Notions. They IHII difpute as we heard
Mr, Khird doing againlt the ir/Jallible bifpiration of the Spirit in
prayer f
270 Defence of the Chnp IV";
Prayer. But fuch as cannot conceive, how one may be aflifted
by the Spirit either in Prayer, or indetd in any Holy Exercife,
without being under his infallible Conduct (o as to be kept alroge-
ther from Error or Imperfeflion, fuch, I fay, who cannot conceive
this are beyond arguing with,and fliould be left to themfelve?. That
every good Man is aQed by the Spirit of God, is the common Be-
lief of the whole Chriftian World. But if any Man fhou'd deny
this, and alledge that it wou'd follow thence, that every good Man
were perfecf and mfalliblej what elfe fhou'd people do but pity and
pray for the foolifh Ob)e£\or ? How often does the Church of Er^g~
Ufd Her felf pray for INSPIRATION'^. Thus in the Col-
led before the Communion, Cleanfe the Thoughts of our Hearts by
///^INSPIRATION of Thy Holy Sprit. Thus in the Collea on
the fifth Sunday afier Easier, Grant torn thy humble Servants , that by
Thy holy INSPIRATION wa may ih'wk thofe things that be Good,
Thus in the prayer for the whole State of Chrilt*s Church Mili-
tant--— Befeechifjg Thee to INSPIRE contimally the Vniverfal
Church rvith the Spirit of Truth. Does any Body think that thofe
prayers import an hfallihU Guidance and Jffijlancef As little do the
^Presbyterians meati, that 1 h» y are under an Infallible Condu6^,
when They fay Their piaxers are h-Jp'red. But oiir Scotch Epifco-
pal Clergy neither know t^je Sciipturcs nor indeed the Englijh Li-
turgy which they are to fond of Let them tell us in what Senfe
they underhand whai is faid in th^ Preamble to ihe Lifurgy, i;/^.
That by an Uniform Agyaement it wat cohcluded on BY THE AID
OF THE HOLY GHOVF, and then we fhJl eafily explain to
them, how our Frayers are Infpired.
I fliall conclude my Defence of CONCEIVED Prayer (which
I have hitherto call'd Extemporary^ only in Compliance with Mr.
K/'/V/rf's Phrafe) with the Words of Bifhop l^^ilkins, who at once
fhews the Meannefs of Mr. Rhind^s Objedions, and reproves the
Frophanencfs of his Spirit (^nj,
' But now, in the Second Place, for any one fo to fit down and
* fatisfy himfelf with this Book- Prayer^ ov i^oaiG pre/cript Form, as to
[ go no farther, this were ftill to remain in his Infancy, and not
to
[ n J Ubi Supra p. $.
SediL Presbyterian Worjhif. 271
' to grow up in his new Nature: This would be, as If a Maa
* who h^d om^ need of Crutches, {boW^ dways afterwards rnake
* ulc of them, and fo mceffltate himfeif to a continual Impotence.
* Tisthe Outv of- every Chtiftian to grow and encreafe in all the
* parts of Chnftianity, as well Gtfts as Graces \ to exercife and im-
' prove every Holy Gift, and not to iiifle any ofthofe Abilities
* wherewith God hath endued them: Now how can a Man be
* faid to live fuitable unto thefe Rules, who does not put forth
*' himfeif in fome Attempts and Endeavours of this Kind ^ And
* then befides, how can fjch a Man fuit his Dcfires unto ieveral
* Emerg(-^ncies? What one faies of Coiwfelio be had from Books,
' m-iy be fitly applyed to this Prayer by Book; that it is commonly
'of it fclf, fomething FUt and Dead, floating for the moft part too
*much in GuMrdities^ and not f Articular enough for each feveral
* Occafion. There is not that Life and Vi?ourin it to engage the
* AfFcciions, as when it proceeds immediatly from the Soul it felf, •
* and is the Natural ExprefTion ofthofe particulars whereot we
* are molt fenfibiC. And if it be a Fault not to rtriveand labour
'after this Gilt, much more is it to jeer and def^ife it by the Name
*'of ex Te.fipo-e Prayer ^ and praying by the Spirit-^ which Exprefli--
'ons (as they are frequenfly uled by fome Men by Way of Re--
' pro3ch ) are tor the mo(t pai't a Sign of a ^ Prophage
'Heart, and fuch as ^xq altogether Strangers from the * n. b.
'Power and Comfort of this Duty. • Thus Bifhop Wil-
kins. And had others, more nearly concerned, treated Mr. K///>i
with the fame Freedom, be had never publifh'd fuch a Book, fo '
much to the Scandal, of Religion and the Shame of the Party He
writes for. •
5 E G T..
72 Defence of the Chap. Z/^.
SECT. 11.
Wherein Mr R hind's Objections' againjl the Pre-
sbyterkn Do&rine eoncerning the Sacraments,
and hif Exceptions againft their Manner of
Difpenfing them^ are confidered^ From P. 177.
to p. 185.
To Begin with Bapu/m, Concerning this Mr Rhhd afferts
roundly and without Fear Firfi, That Bapiifm with Wa-
jy .r- ter IS hdi/per/ftUj Necefsaiy, feeing without it none
^^ ^7^^ can reafonably exped tojbe baptized with the Spirit,
or that they fhallenter into the Kingdom of God, nay that, ifGod^s
extraordinary Mercy does not interpofe, they fhall be damned with-
out it. ^f^^W/)*, That the Water is the Vechicle of the Spirit, and
that the inward Grace does 4/rr.95 accompany the outward Mean,
xvhe» it er/counters with no Renitency in the Rectpiem, Having laid
down thefe Principles, Heobjedls F/>/, That the Presbj'erlans teach
that Baptifm isof no Efficacy. Secondly^ That they fuffer Children
to die without it. Thirdly^'Yh^x. ihe'iv Corfeffion of Faith, whereof
fome Doctrines are dubious and iome impious and falfe, is the Creed
into which they baptize. Fourthly, That the genuine Presbyteriatis
urge the Obligazion ofthe Solemn League and Covenant, and prefsit
-as a necefTary Condition of the Child's Admiffionto Baptifm.
As for his Firft Affei tion. That Bapttfmwiih Water ii indilp^^nfibly
»fc(/jr^;7, it isdire^lyPopifb. The Presbyterians wiliiisgiy grant
•that the Contempt or willfullNegleclof Baptifm is damnable, I
mean, in an adult Perfon, or to the Parent who negle£ts to p* ocure
it for his Child. But that the meer Want of it is damnable to the
Child, or to an adult Ferfon when he cannot have it in an orderly
Way
Scdi. 11. Presbyterian JVorJJnp^ 279
Way,thatis,accordingtoChriiVsInftitution, this I affirm is ad imn-
able Error, an Error which gives one the moft unworthy Notions of
God, an Error which hath been the fruitfull Mother of many others
a^d of the moft fcandalous Pratlices. It is to this Error the Limbus In-
f:intum owes its Being, to this is owing the Practice of Lay b'aptifm
by Women as well as 'vlen in the Church oi England; yea by fews,
Turks and Pagans, as well as by Chriftians, as is allowed in the
Church 0^ Rome, Itis tothisErrorthefehafty Baptifmsareowing,
where there is no ProfefTion by, noSponfion for the Party baptized;
than which theie can hardly be a greater Scandal on the Chri-
ftian Religion. For, it expofes that Holy Myftery to the fame
Reproaches wherewith the Heathen Luftrations were fo jullly loaded
*. But I need not infift on this. The excellent Forbes a Corfe before
cited has fufficicntly expofed that execrable Doctrine at large in 6Vjf
Chapters {o). The Church oi Rome has found it too hard for her to
anfwer him on that Head. But indeed there is nothing too hard for
our Modern Epfcopaitans^ who do all their Bufinefs by Allertion,
Proof being too great a Drudgery.
Mr Rhwa^s Second Aflertion is like unto the Firfi. When the
Council of Tr^;?^ decreed ( p) That the Sacraments confer Grace non
foftenttbus Obicem^ it gave Scandal to all the World: For it turns
thefe facred Ordinances into meer Charms. Yet Mr Rhind has
new vamped it, requiring Nothing elfe but a Non.Renitencj in the
Recipient, whereas the Scripture exprefly requires the fofitive Qua-
lifications of faith and Repentance. Yea, the 6Vo;i Epifcopal Litur-
gy fuppofes thefe QuaUfications even in Infants. Thus in the Ca-
techifm.
Q. Wliat is ret^uired of Yerfons to be baptized ?
Anf. Repentance,whereby they forfake Sin,and Faith,whereby they
ftedfaftly believe the Promifesof God,madetothem in the Sacrament.
Q. Why then are Infants baptized, wh(n bj Reafon of their tender Age
They cannot PERFORM them'^. M m Anf.
• Omne n fus, omnemque tnali purg.imine diufum
Credtbiznt nofiii fjtlei e fofse Sous.
(jfAcij. principiHm maris fuit : ilia nocentes
Tmpiiiluflr.itos foHcre facta futat.
tAb nimium fuci cs, qui trilhu crimma ctdis
Flumiuen tolli pofse futatnaaua. Ovid. Faft. Lib. 11.
[e] Inlbua. Hilt. Theol. Lib- X. Cap. VL VIL VIIL IX. X.XL [ pj Can.VLD^
Sdcrameucis in Gca«ie.
274 Defence of the GHap. 7/^.
Anf, Yes ; They do PERFORM them by their Sureties, who
promife and vow them horh, in the /. Name.: ^Ahich when they
come to Age, ihemielvts are boiled to pertorm.
Thusalfo it was in the En^/i(}j Liturgy, batafcerthe Rcftiuratioit
they altered it, and dafh'd out the Word FERFORM in the be- ,
ginning of the anU'er to the lafl Quefiion^ And they had good
Reafon to do fo : For a vicarious Perform-' nee ol Faith and Re-
pentance is a pretty dark Myftery. I'm fure it vvou'd be Nonfenfe
in a Vresbyterian ; and yet the Aheration they have made mends
not the Matter a Whit. But that is not it we are at prefent con-
cern'd about, 'tis plain that the Do8rine of Non-Rerjitencyxs a
Stranger to the Scriptures. But Mr Rhind was for brufliing for-
ward in his Chat ; difpleafe whom he will, he has the Church
Q^ Rome on his fide. So much for his AJjarttons , Next to his
Ohje^ions,
FirB, He objeQs, That the PresbyterUns teach that Bapifm is of
no Efficacy p. 178. What Anfwer is to be given to this ? None fo
proper as that of the ?fdmtH, What fhAll be given unto ihet"^. Or
rvhat Jhall be done unto Thee^ thou fa/ fe Tongue'? Sharp Arrows of the
Mi-^hty^ with Coals of Juniper, Pf. CXX. 3, 4. Hear the fresbyte^
rians declare themfelves in their Confffion of Faith {q), ' The Ef-
* ficacy of Baptifm is not tyed to that Moment of Time wherein
* it is adminiftred : Yet, notwithftanding by the Right Ufe of this
* Ordinance, the Grace promifed is not only offered, but. really ex-
' hibiied and conferred by the Holy Ghoft, to fuch ( whether of
* Age, or Infants) as that Grace belongeth onto, according to the
* Counfel of God's own Will, in his appointed Time. The fresbyte*
rians have no where declared that any baptized Infants are Damn-
ed; But to afftrt, as the Englijb \J\i\y\gy ^o^s (y), ' 1 hat Child-
' ren which are baptized dying before they commit aQual Sin, are
* undctihtedly faved, is fo far from being certain by Goa'^s IVsrd^ that
I affirm there is not one Title from the Beginning of Genefs to the
End of ^he Revelation to fupport it. God has his own Way of dealing
with
[ q j Chjp. XXVIII Sea. (. [rj Peault Kubrick in the Office for publick Bapiifmof lafanw.
Seft. //• Presbyterian VPorpn^. 275
with Infants, which we are fure is moft Juft and Holy. But it is
fecret to us. And therefore to dctern:iine, that all that die in that
State unbaptiz'd are damn'd, and that all that are Baptized are
undoucedly faved, is veiy high Prefumption. *Tis a very ufuaj
Thing among die Popifh Miiriojiaries to Baptize the Infants of tiie
native Udta^s Clanculary, without the Knowledg or Confent of
their f'arents, v\'hen Tliey can find any fecret Occafion. Will any
Proteflant determine, that fuch of them thus baptized as die in their
Infant State are therefore r/wrfW^/f^ij/ faved ? Mult the abfurd and
unwarrantable A8ion of a vagrant Fellow conclude God as to the
DifpoHl of His Creatures ? This is fuch nonfenfical Do6Uine as is
fit only for the Church of Rome which God has given up lo De-
lufions.
Secondly^ He objects, * That the Presbyterians cruelly fuffer wretched
* Children to die without Baptifm, than which Nothing can be more
* oppofite to the Dodrine of Chrift who exprcfly fays '^ohnllL 5.
* That except a Mdn be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into
* the Kjngdom of God, Might not one haveexpe£led, that he wou'd
have adduced lb many Inllances as might have made his Charge /'r^-
famahly true, and juftified it fo far, as that it might affect the Body of
the Presbyterians'^. Nay but he has not even offered at fo much as
one Inftance. ' Tis very true Presbyterian Minifters will not baptize
Children in a Hurry, nor content themfelves with pronouncing the
ifolemn Words without a previous Profeffion orSponfion. Andia
this both Scripture and Reafonji ilify them. They are ftill ready to
baptize Children, when'risdcfired, in a regular and orderly W^ay:
But, when it cannot be done but in fuch a Manner as reprefents Bap-
tifm as a Charm, and expofes the Chriltian Myftenes to the Con-
tempt and Reproach of prohine Perfons;chey don't think it law full
for them to difpence it, an.i herein they are Juftified by BiQio^)
Hxll f j) who exprefly fays, that as B^jp^ifm is net to be negligently
deferred^ fo Uis not to be faperfiitioufly haHened. But, which is
of much more Import, they are very lure that, in fich d Cafe, the
Want of Bapcifm is not prejudicial to the Salvation of the Child ;
M m 2 for
[ s ] Decad. V, Ep. IV.
7y6 Defence of the Cbap, IFJ
For it were moft horrid to think, that a Merciful! God ffiou'd dama^
Infants for what was not their own Fault in any RefpeQ:.
As for that Text which Mr Rhhd infi^s on Except a Man beborn
&c it is moftridiculouflyapplyed in thisOie. ?oxthAt, as well as alt
Scripture Declarations of the likeNatUiC are calculated, not for In-
fants, butforadi)lt Ferfons andfuchas are come to the Exercifeof
their Reafon. To fuch it is not only neceffary (asit isalfo to In-
fants) that they be internally fanQified, but alfo that they makeaa
outward ProfefTion by receiving Baptifm. For Chrift will own
none for his Difciples that are afhamed of Him before Men. Plainly,
the Import of that Text may be eafily gathered from the Occafion of
it. Nicodemus was a difcreet Perfon, and had a honourable Opinion:
of our Saviour, that He was aTeacher come from God, But then he'
had come to Jefus by Nighty which argued that he wastimorous,and.
loath to profefs publickly the inward Sentiments of his Soul. Where-
fore Chrift knowing bis weak Side, and underftanding the Reafon
of his Night.Vifu^ inllantly and at firft Dafh tells him the Ufelef-
nefs of internal Ferfwafion without an open ProfefTion; that it
was necefTary he fhould be born again ( which rsa Phrafetaken front
the Jemflx Vo^nti^ dhomf rofsljtpjm )t\otQT{\Y pf^^^ by San-^
Qification and the renewing ofthe inner Man, but ^/ W'^^^^r too by
an open and undaunted ProfefTion before the World, of whicfr
Baptifm wou'd be the Badge and Token, without which latter he
cou'd notownhim for His Difciple, anymore than without the
former. This is the plain Stnfe of that Text ; but what Relation
has this to Infant Baptifm, w^hich is not founded upon that Texr,
nor indeed reafonably can be, but uponother Scripture Grounds
which I need not now mention. And that the faid Text does not
prove the Damnation oflnfants dying without Baptifm, Tfhall
produce the Judgment of two BlUiops. Tfie Firfl: is o^ Hopkins late Br-
i\\o\^ o'i London- Derry in his Sermon upon it. Having narrated that
Comment upon it which Mr Rhindhas given us. He adds. ' But this
'Opinion is unwarrantable, and contrary to the received Judg-
* mentofthe Church in the Primitive Times," who, if they had
* thought the baptifmal R-egeneration was indifpenfibly necelTary
' to Salvation, wou'd not certainly have tinted and confin'd the
I Adminiif ration of it only to two Times ofthe Year Eafter imd
FenticoH,
S'ed. IL- Presbyterian IVorjlnf: 277
^^ Pemecoft, thereby to bring upon themfelves the Blood of their
* Souls that fhould in that hterimhsLve died without Baptifm. Thus
he. Theotheris Jofeph Hall Bidiop (>{ Exeter \n his Letter, to the
Lady //<?w^z4 Hay^ juft before cited on the Margin. Throughout-
all that Epiftle, which I recommend to the Reader's Perufal,
he difputes with the greate(t Force of Reafon againft that Opi-
nion of the Damnation of Infants dying without Baptifm, and
in Terms calls it The hard Seyjtenceofa Bloody Religion.
All this Dof^rine of the Damnation of Infants dying without
Baptifm is founded upon another falfe DoQrine licked up by Mr
Rhwd, viz. That the Water is the Vehicle of the Spirit, and that
the very a6l of Baptifm carries always with it an inward Regene-
ration, and that none can have the Spirit without or ^f/c^re Baptifm.
This is plainly contrary to the whole Tenor of the ^Scripture, and
tho' it was too early entertained by fomeofthe Fathers, yet, 'tis
certain it was not the received Dodrine ofthc Primitive Church ;
as, btfides many particular Teftimonies that might bs adduced,
will appear from thefef/^rt'^ general Confiderations.
F/^y?, It was a very prevailing Cuftom among them to deljy
t^eir B<3ptifm till they were in extremis. In fome indeed this
proceeded from a Tincture of the NovatianU^XQ^y : But others,
Lr In lb nee, CoMJi amine the Great who was no Novatian, delayed
it upon other Confiderations. But now, if Chriftians had believ-
ed chat they cou'd not have the Spirit, nor be internally regene-
rated,nor be Members of Chrilt or the Children of God till they
w^re made fuch in Baptifm, and that they fliouM certainly be-
come fuch in Baptifm; wouM all the World have been able to
perfwade them to delay it? 'Tis very hard to think fo.
S-condly, The fame appears from the Hiftory of the Catechumens.
During that State they were Probationers, not only as to their
Knowkdg, but likewife their Piety and Manners; and were ob-
liged, before they cou'd be admitted to Baptifm to give moral E-
vidence of the Grace of God in their Hearts, in a Word to have
every Thing in Chriftianity, but the Solemn Invcftiture, which
both confirmed What they had, and entitled Them to fuither
Degrees.
ThirdljylhQ' Infant Baptifm was ftill allowed as Uwfull in tli^
^ ^ Cathohck
278 Defence of the Chap JV.
Caihollck Church, yet it did not umverfdly obtain for fevera] Cen-
turies-, fo that n^ I ani not much miftaken ) the Neceffl^y there-
of was not alTerred before the Council of Canhnge in the Year 41 8.
Certainly had Chriftians believed, that the Water is the Vechicle
of the Spirit, and that we cannot be fpiritually Regenerated without
it or before it, and that in the very AQ of it we are fpiritnallv Re-
generated, they wou'd never have omitted it. I do not adduce this
to juftify them in that Omiflion, but only thereby to (hew that
Mr. Rhtnd's DoBrine was not the Belief of the Primitive Church
as he without proof alledges.
In a Word Faith and Repentance are prerequired to Baptifm in
adult Perfons at leaft. If they can have Faith and Repentance
without the Spirit andfpiritual Regeneration, which is not obtained
( as They fay) but in and by Baptifm, I don't fee why They may
not go to Heaven without the Spirit or fpiritual Regeneration.
For I'm fure Repentance towards God and Faith towards our
Lord Jefus Chrift is the Sum of the Gofpel. But Enough of this
for this Time.
Thirdly^ Mr. Rbind obje^^s, ' That the Confefflon of Faith^ where-
* of fome Doflrines are dubious, fome Impious and falfe, is the
* Creed into which the Pre/^j;em»s baptize. I anfwer i/?, That
however dubious, falfe and impious thefe DoQrines are, yet I have
already proved them to be the DoQrines of the Catholidc
Church of Chrift. 2^/;, 'Tis f^^lfe that the Confeffion of. Fauh is
the Creed into which They baptize They baptize into the Be-
lief of the Scriptures of the Old and New Tellament, and only
declarativly affert Their CofUion of Faith to be agreeable thereto.
'^dly^ Suppofe They did baptize into iht'iv CorjfeJJion of Faith, why
is not that as lavvfull as baptizmg into the /ipn/he's Creed? Arc
they not both humane Compofures? Or does he dream that the
Apoftles themfelves were the Authors of it ? But this only ad Ho^
rnimm. For my own Part I affert, that it is unlawfuU to baptize
into the Belief of any human Compofure otherwife than as I
have explained above.
Lafily, He Obje£ls, ' That the genuine Presbyterians prefs the
* Obligation oi i\\t Solemn League and Covenant as a neceffary Con-
i dition of the Child's Admiflion to Baptifm. Tij denyed, and Mr.
Rhind
Seft. //. Presbyterian PVorJhip. 279
Rhind is challenged to prove It. I affirm further, that there is no
Fresb^ttrtan Miniller in the Nation who will refufe to baptize in
the Terms of the Dhe5tory^ among which Terms there is not fo
much as Mention o^ ih^ Solemn League and Cove 'i ant, ■ W[v,Rh$nd\%
chalknp,ed to difprove this W he ran. So much for Baptilm.
I procetd next to conficier his ObjcQions relating to the oiher Sa-
crament viz. The Lora^s S-pper. As to this he Ob
jeth upon. I. The Infrfc^utmy of it among the i^re- The Lor^s
shperiAns II. The Indeunc) wherewith They cile- Supper,
braie it. lU. The hard I'erms upon which They ad-
mit toit. IV. That it is indeed no Sacrament at all as difpenfed
by them. Oithele in Order.
I. tie objects upon the Jnfrequenc^ .o^x\\q Lord's Supper among
the Presbyterians. In </;c? Presbyterian Communion^ fauh hep. 182,
my Lot might fall in a Place rvk^re th Hjly F!ucharili would not he ad*
miniflrtd once- in a Dozin of Tears, Foranfwer. 1//, Has he given
Inibnce of any fuch Place ? No, noifo much as one. 2^/>,Sup-
pofe he hid given one, two, three, nay even aScore oflnliances,
were the Conliitutioa to be charged with that? There are, iio
doubt, carelefs Mmilkrs among the Presbyterians^ as well as in
other Communions, but none but a mean maliciou«i Soul will load
the whole Body with i he Defers of a few. ^^ly, Was xhtEpif-
fo/ji/Clergv, during their Reign before the Revolution^ lefsguihy
than \\\Q,?reshytertans are? I am content it be put to a Trial through
the Nation. And, to begin the Work; wiihin the Presbytry of
Dumb&rtan^ where I ferve, there are Seventeen Parifhes. I affinn that
inthefe Seventeen Parifhes taken complexly, the better to mend the
worfe, the Communion has been celebrated three tir/.es oftnervj\\\\in.
thefe l3ozen Years laA by paft, than it was during the whole twenty
eight Ye.^rs under the Epifcopd Reign before the lievolution. ' ^thly^
Is the C\\w^c\\o{ England., to which Mr Rhind is gone over, innocent
in this Pai-iicuhr. Hear Dr iVetenhall late Bifliop of /C-^V/aw^ in his
Book entitled Due frequency cfth: Lara's Supper, dedicated to Her iMa-
jelly , and printed at Edinburgh 1 706. ' Amongit the Laws of our
' Church (faith he in his Dedication ; as there is none perhaps
< more excellent and truly Chridian, than thole touching the Lord's
• Supper: fo it is hard to alTign ANYMOIIHNEGLECIED, than
aSo Defence of the Cbp. 7/^
* the Riibrlcks which in join Due Freqaercy of It ; and the Negle£l
< isnotonlvinCOUNTRY.PARISHES,biireveninfomeGREAT-
« ER CHURCHES. Thus the Bifliop. Why then wou'd Mr /^^/W
leap out of the Frying Pan into the Fire ? Why wouM he charge
the Presbyter iaf^i with that whereof his Brethren both in Scotland, and
EtigUnd\\2,VQ been fonotorioufly guilty ? But, an impudent W^ay
of writing is become the Characteriftick of the niodern Epifcopd
Authors.
II. He obje£ls upon the Indecency wherewith the LordS Supper
;s celebrated among x\\q Presbyter inns. Wherein lyes this Indecency?
* V^hy, faith he p. 182, the Convocation has more of the Confud-
' on of a Fair, than of the order and Decency of a religious Af*
* fembly. And how can it other wife be, when they not only al-
' low, but encourage, on thefe Occafions, fuch Rendevouzes cfthe
* promifcuous Rabble, who defert their own Churches, to the great
' Hinderance of their Devotion who communicate,and Scandal too,
* when they fee fo many profefTed Chriftians negle6i their Lords
* exprefs Command of keeping up the Memorial of his Death and
' Paffion for them. For Anfwer. 7/?, Tis true, Communicants
have been very numerous among the Presbyterians ever fince the
Revolution, Not only the Inhabitants of the Farifh in which the
Communion is celebrated^ but many from the neighbouring Pa-
rifhes> attefted by their refpedive Minifters, have ufually joined
in it; But is the Numeroufnefs of Communicants either a Fault or an
Indecency ? So far from it, that cou*d the whole Chriftian Church
communicate at once, it wou'd be fo much the more of the Nature
of a Communion J and tend fo much the more to the Honour of our
Blefled Saviour. But this ObjeQion of Mr Rhind^s proceeds from
Siilinejs, or, which is the fame Thing, from Envy; becaufe during
the Eptfcopal Governnient,in many Places the Miniller and his Family,
with the Sexton and his, and perhaps two or three more made up the
*v' hole Communicants. 2%, 'Tistruelikewife, that there are many
others prefentoftimesbefidesthofe that Communicate. But where is the
Harm of this ? Does it hinder the Devotion of the Communicants, that
others are looking on them ? Is it not rather an Engagement upon Them
tocarry Themfelves with themorefolemn Gravity? Or how can
the prefence of fuch as do not communicate be a Scandal to tho(Q
that do.^ For, tho* Jhey do not communicate at (hat time, it
cannot
ScdiJL Presbyterkn TVorJJjip. 281
cannot inferr a Megle^ of our Lord's Command, feeing people
are not at all Times in a Frame for Communicating. And when a
Miniilcr comes to alTill his Neighbour Minifter in difpenfmg tlie
Communion, isit either Fault or Scandal for his Feople to follow
him where they are furniflied with Sermon? Isnotthis betterthan
that they fliould loiter idly at Home all the Lord's Day, which woo'd
be both a Sin in them, and give Scandal to others r* But this Ob-
jedion of his was indeed too mean to have been noticed.
I wouM only ask Mr Rfjind if there are not incomparably greater
Indecencies in the Way of the Church of Engla^d^ to which he has
feparited, Isit poflible there can bea greater Scandal, than to fee a
known Rr»ke,notour for all Manner of Vice and Leudnefs, partaking
ofthofe holy Myfteries, before he has given the lead Proof or Evi-
gence of his Reformation ? Yet this is every Day feen in the
Church of England, and the Priefts cannot, dare not help it.
lam not to alledge this without proof, that were the Epifcopd
Way of writing, which I don't envy. I lhall;give good andfuffi-
cient Documents of it. Mr B//^^ a Presbyter of the Church of
EngLvrid has lately told us (0 ' of a Minifter who was worried
* out of his Living and Life too, for denying the Communion to
' a Rake^ betore the Chancellor had excommunicated Him. Again
tho' the Rubric require, that fo rnany as intend to be Partakers of
the Holy Qommunioa jhtll fi'jnifie their Names unto the Curate^ at lea (t
fomeitrnethe daj before. Yeti^faysthe fame Author p. 51. ) *thisis
' more thin lever kne^ done. I'm lure 'tis omitted in all or
* moft of the London Churches. Yet further he tells us p. 54. that
Dr F .- ...f was jufpfi.'dtdfor denying^ the Sacrament to fuch as only
came to it as & Quilific4tion to ftll Ale andBra/idy. La[lly, he tells us
(ibid)o{ a Solui'on that was given to one fwhodoub[ed oncoming
to the Communion) in thefe Words What Damage is it to pledge
the Par I on in a Cup ofWine^fuppoftng only the Wtne be good. To Mr
Bifiet let us add the Author of The Cafe of the Regale and Pontificate
who is known to be mofl violently High Church. He roundly
aiTertsp. 179 * that an Adion lies againllthe Minifter who fhall
V N n refufe
[ c j Moilorn Faiucick. p. +3.
282 Defence of the Chap. IV.
^ refufe tbe Sacrament, to them who he knows, fees and hears m
' their Converration and Principles, to be never fo much unqualifyed.
Thefe are not ?resbyterian Alkdgances, but truQ Eflfccpal Hiftory.
III. He Obje8s p. ^83. upon the Hard Terms, on which the
Tresbymia^s admit to the Communion, in Two Particulars. The
Firft, relating to the Verfons^ the Secord to the Yoflure, Fnji, As-
to the Yerfons, He alledges ' They will admit none who in the
' leaft favour the Hierarchy and Liturgy of the Church of Ef?gl(wd^
* but Excommunicate them with the vikft Blafphemers and Adul-
terers. I ask him, Does he know any of the Favourers of the Hi~
erarchy arid Liturgy who were ever denyed the Sacrament on that
Account ? Has he given any Inftance of this? Not one. The
Vreshyteriam debarr none from Communion with Thetn in the Sa-
crament, whofe Principles and Life do not debarr Them from the
Chrijlian Communion- 1 hey don't look upon that Holy Ordinance
as the diftinguifliing Badge of a Party or of any particular Com-
munion of Chriftians ; but as the Common Priviledge of all the
Faithfull. And therefore They ufually Feme the Lord's Table ia
the. Words of the Scripture I Cor. VI. 9. Kpoxv ye not that the
Vfirighteous fiail not inherit the Kjngdom of God ? Be not deceived : Net'
ther Fornicators^ nor Idolaters—ox {omQ fuch like Scripture ; or by go-
ing through the Ten Commandments. If Mr Rhind can name any Pre^
shyterian Minifters who do otherwife, I fuppofe the Church will not
think her felfobliged to defend them. Bur, to exclude the Impenitent
Breakers of any of the T^/? Commandments from the Priviledge
cfGofpel Myfieries; to debarr thofe from the Lord's Table, whom
the Lord has, by the exprefs Sentence of his Word, debarred out of
the Kingdom of Heaven ; is, what every one, who is not quite lofi:
in Impiety, muft own to be not only Uwfull but a Duty,
This is fuiiicienr to vindicate the Presbyterians: But who fbalL
vindicate the Church of ii/?^/d;^Conftitution ? Mr Rhind is the mod
unlucky Man m the World. Hehas feparated from thQ Presbyter U
Ans^ upona Chimericallmagination of the Narrownefsoftheir Cha*
rity, that they admit none to the Communion, who in the leaft Fa-
vour the Hierarchy and Liturgy •, tho' Ifuppofe> there is no one
living can bring Inftance, where ever they refufed it, 00 tha{^
Score, to any who defired it : And yet he has gone over to the
Church of EngUndy whofe. Divines, I mean the High-Church
Party
Scd:^ IL Presbyterian PT^orJhip. 289
party of *em, have declared in the ftrongeft Term^, that they will
not admit to it Dijfenters or Preji>yterians, whom they, in their
equally wife and charitable Siile, call NOTORIOVS 6CHISMJ,
!r/C/CS^atthe fame Time that they declare them to be nnthout the
Church, This is plain h'om ih^ Reprefentatton made by the lower Hor4fe
of Convocation to the Archbifbops and BifJjops in the Month of De-
cember 1704. which the Reader may confult. And Mr. Barclay 2l
Teacher ot the Party, juft come* from Londorjy has told his Mind
very honeftly in this Cafe. I jhall not^ fa>s he '^, ftick to fay that
I wotdd not admit 4 NOTORIOUS SCHISMATICK, to Catholtck
Communion^ till he recanted his Error ^ upon any conjideration of Laws or
Statutes, I don't think but Mr. Barclay may be eafie on that Head:
For, Ifuppofe, theie NOTORIOVS SC HIS M ATIC KS he
fpeaks of will not give him much Trouble that Way. However, 'tis
plain that Wgh-Lhurch has made the Communion a Badgeof a Party.
Was not Mr. Rhind then very well advifed ingoing over to Her?
Secondly, As to the Pofture, Mr. Rhind Objects, ' That the Pre*
^ sbyterians difcharge that as Idolatrous, which others think moft
* expreflTive of their inward Devotion, and debarr fuch from the
* Communion who wou'd ufe it. There is no doubt he means
the Pofture of Kjieeling which is enjoined both by the Scotch E-
pifcopal and the English Liturgies. And as to that, I here engage
that no one Presbyterian Minifter in the Nation fhall, on that Ac-
count, refufe the Communion to any Perfon who can prove, or find
any other to prove for him, either liif, That that Pofture was com-
manded by Chrift. Or 2^/;, That it was ufed by the Apoftles when
They communicate in Chrift's prefence. Or ^dly^ That there is
any Hint of its Ufage in the New Teftament Or /[thly^ That it
was pra^ifed in the Primitive Church for the firft Five Centuries
at leaft after Chrift. If none of thefe Things can be proved, as I
am fure none of 'em can, and which every Writer on the Eptfco-
f^/Side, of any Chara^er, owns; why lliou'd a Church break Her
Order to gratify people in their Fancies, when 'tis confeffed on all
hands Thar, that Pofture of Kj^eelmg in the Sacrament has been
ufed to the moft Idolatrous Purpofes. But Mr. Rhmd alledges
N n 2 That
* Pcrfwafivc to the People of ScotUnd p. iCj.
2^4 Defence of the Chap. IP.
\ That fuch as are for that Poftire are ready to atteft the Searcher
of Hearts thar ilieir Adoration is only dircfted to the one True
' and Living God. ?nd His Son Jeius Chrift, who is exalted at
* his Father's Right Hai^d. I anfwer. So is the Church o^ Rome
ready to arteft with the fanne Solenfinity, That when She worfliips
before the Figure of an Old Man, She does not worfiiip the Image
but God the Father by it. Yet who will excufe Her from Idola-
try on that Account ? And, which renders this Bufinefs of Kj^eeU
ing ftill fo much the more SufpicioDs, the late VMicator of the
Fa^jciamentd Charter oj Presbytry is angry at the Rubric in the Li-
turgy which explains the Reafon of Kneeling at the LordS Sup-
per, and expreQy fays p. 79, That mither hath the Church gained ^
mr can the Liturgy be [aid to have been wade better by it, BtJt of
this, and the dreadfull Blunder in Hiftory he has committed to
fupport this His Opinion, the Reader may perhaps hear moreelfe-
where. Yet further, why may not Presbyterians confine Ppople to
the TdJe PoHure in the Sacrament which the Epi/copal Divines
themfelves own was the Pofture ufed by the Difciples in Chrift's'
prefence; when the Church of England confines People to the Po.
fture of l\peeUng hv 'Which there is no fuch Warrant, and ap-
points (i^j every Minifter to be fufpended who wittingly gives
the Communion to any that do not Kneel. Some may perhaps think
that our 5f^/ J; Epifcopalians are milder in that Matter, and indeed
the above mention'd>7W/V4/<?r of the Fundamental Charter wou'd
have us believe fo. * Itistrue, faith he p.^4. all communicate in
* the Sacrament oftheEucharift, kneeling ; but Iknow none, that
' would deny the Sacrament to one, who could not without Scru-
' pie take it in that Pofiure. This is fpoken with Abundance of
Gravity, but wMth what Integrity let the Reader judge, when hef
confiders i/. That the Rubric in the Scots Epifcopal Liturgy is
as ftrick for kneeling as in the Englijh Liturgy. And 2*5//^, the
Scots Epifcopal Canon with i^efpe£t to that Pofture is equally rtri^
with the Englijh^ as maybe feen both in the Canon itfelf and in.
Clarendon^ Hiftory. Does not this fhew their Spirit and Frin-;
ciples, tho' they yield at prefentio gull unwary People ?
Before
£ y ]vC»n.Oii. jgcViJi l^oy
Sed. IJ. Presbyterian Worfhif. 285
Before I proceed to Mr RhhcPs next Objection, there is one thing
T cannot but take notice of. The Ep/fcopai Veopk have lately cau-
{^ed reprint the Liturgy which was fent doun for Scotland by K.
Charles I, and which began the Troubles J»fJoi6-^j^and I am in-
formed that it is begun to be praQifed in feme of their Meeting
Houfes inftead of the Englijh Liturgy. I think my fclf obliged
in Charity to advertife People, ^ That that Liturgy, in . ^ b
the Office for the Communion^ is a great deal worle than
i\\Q Fnohflj^ and is:5plainly calculated for Begetting in People the
Belief of the Corporal Prefence. I fliall at this Time give thrte
Evidences of this, if/. The £/?f///7-> Liturgy has along Kr/^r/V de-
claring that, by the Pofture of Kneeling no Adoration is intended,
or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine
there bodily receivtd, or unto any Corporeal Prefence ofChrifi's
Natural Flefh and Blood. The 5f(?/i Liturgy neither haththis De-
claration, nor any Thing equivalent to it. o-dlyj the Er/gli/h L'l^
turgy has a Rubric enjoining the Minifler at the faying thefe Words
in the Confecration, IVhefi he had^ivefj Thanks He hake it, to break
the Bread. The 6V(?,^j Liturgy has no^uch Ruhr ic, nor any Ap-
pointment for bieakingthe Bread, anymore than the Roman Ritual
has. ^dly, The E?7ghfjj Liturgy enjoins the Minifier to deliver the
Bresd to the People in O.-der, into their Hands all MEEKLY
Kjtedtng^ but the 6V(P/j Liturgy Words ir, All HUMBLY /C^^J-
ing, that we might knov/ They intended Adoration by that Fo-
fture,tho'they have not rold, to what. I may polTibly have Occafion,
fometime after this, to fhs w particularly how much worfe \\\t.Scotch
Liturgy is thin thQ Er^g I i/Jj, Bui 1 thought it neeJfull to give thefe
Hints now, becaufe the £/?//<:£)/'.?/ Clergy bear their People in Hand,
that it is upon the Matter one and the fame with the Engl/fb. Par*
ticuhrly Mr Swart^ one of their Teachers at £«"/r/i^/^r^/;, in ImfJjort
DiJcGu^Je after Sermon, conrmendirig the Service told them p 8. ' 'J'hat
' there is no Material Difference between the Scoti/Jj and Eng///b
* Books of Common- Prayer ; and that they differ as little as the
' Scotijh ^nd Engl /JJj Tongues. 1 he firll of which Affertionsisfalfe,
as I have jull now made out; and the latter Nonfenfe. For, lo
far as itfollows the £^^////^ in Matter, it isthe very fame in Words
andPhrafej and na Wonder, for every Body knows it was of
Engltjb ■
b85 Defence of the Chap IV.
Em0j?>\ti\ which herhaps made it take fo ill with the Scots Air.
But enough {or Wi\' Smart , whofe Name and Pamphlet are fo very
ill fuitedTandwhofe Charaaer feems to bethe very Reverfeofihe
Apoftle's Precept , Bf/>^ /■« '^^^^^^•^''^^^^^^^ ^C/;//^, howbeit in Malice
hs is a I\daffm
IV Mr RhM objeas p. 184. That it is no Sacrament at all as
difpeM by the Presbyterians. Pray why? Time is, iaith be, no
due Appltcation of the Form to the Matter. Very ftrange / They al-
ways read the Words of Inftitution either out of the Gofpels or
out of IC(?r. XI. They have ftiil, after our Lord's Example, a
Prayer Thanksgiving or Blefling of the Bread and Wine. Is not
this a due Application of the Form to the Matter.? ' No, fates
< Mr Khind, the Form in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are
< the fame Words by which our Lord did at firft conditute the
* Sacrament 'viz. Take^ eat, This is my Body, Do this in Remembrance
* of Me and Drink ye of this Cap, for this is mj Blood: Do this as
< oft as ye Drink it in Remembrame of Me, Very well. Do not
the Presbyterians ufethefe Words? Are they not in the Inftitution?
> Nay hxxx, faith he, if they be at all, they ought to be ufed in that
« Prayer by which they intend to confecrate the Elements ? Is
there any Precept for this in the Scripture ? No. A ny Example there ?
None. Any Evidence for the PraClice, for at kzi\four or five Cen-
turies'after Chrift, in the Writitigs of the Fathers ? Not any.
The firft Account we have of it is in the Books of the Sacraments
(x) which pafs under the Name oi Ambrofe, and are inferted a-
mong his Works. But I hope Mr. Rhind knows that thefe Books
were not writ till fome Ages after Ambrofe's Death. And if Mr.
Rhind's Dodrine be true, the Church of England Her felf, for a
long Time after abolilhing the Mafs had not the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper. For, that which is call'd the Prayer of Con fecr at ion^
and in which the Words, Take, eat, this is my Body &c are, was
not in K. Edward's ^r?L Liturgy: But inftantly after the Piayer
We do not pre/ume &c. They proceeded to the Diftribution. Nay,
which is worft ot all, we are alTured from the Infallible Chair, that
the Apoftles ufed no other Prayer of Confecration but the Lord's
Prayer
[x ] Lib. IV. Cip. V.
Sed IL Presbyterian Iforfiip. 287
prayer (j). And, I fuppofe ever Body knows that thefe Words,
Td'ity eat, this is mj Body^ are not in that Prayer-, and I think
'tis pliin they were never intended to (land, in that Form, in any
Prayer, ■
But now to gratifie Mr. Rhind^ let us fuppofe that ihefe Words
fliou'd bQ\ni\\Q Prayer of Confecr at ion ^ what follows? V\l\\y^there^
faith he, they are never once mentioned by the Presbyterians ^ and too
often there isf — Nothing equivalent to fuffly the Defe6f, Did he ever
confider what he faid f Did he ever regard whether it was true
or falfef Is not every Minifter Directed (z) upon that Occafion
to pray, ' That God may fanQifie the Elements both of Bread and
' Wine, and fo blefs his own Ordmance, that we may receive by
* Faith the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift crucified for us, and
« fo to feed upon Him, that He m?y be one with us, and we with
* Him ; that He may live in us and we in Him and to Him, who '
« hath loved us and given himfelf for us Is net here fomething equi-
valent to thefe Words? And can Mr Rhind n^mQ that Minifter who '
does not pray either thus or to the fame Purpofe. But f roving was •
none of his Bufinefs, all he had to do was to ^JJert.
I doubt not but after all this the Reader will think ftrange that Mr
Rhind fhould have mentioned fuch an Objedion. But the Cafe is plain, >
as he was avowedly Popifi on the other Sacrament, fo is he upon this ; i
and wou'dinfinuate upon People the very rational DoQ-tineof Tran-
fahjiantiation to be tfFdBed by the pronouncing of thefe particular
Words. And BelUrmin led the Way to him ' (&)^ fo that he has
indeed a Man of a very confiderable Name for his Mailer.
Thus now I h-kvegone through the Epifcopal Objedions againft tho -
"Presbyterian Worlhip both as to Prayers and Sacraments, And I hope ■
I hive made ir plain that there is not any one ofthe Things cbje^led
agajnft, but what ( fofar as the Objeftion is true ; is fo far from
being a Ground of S^/^^r^/zc^, that it is highly jull-ifiable. But then,
I butl ask Mr /U/W, why, as he has given us the Grounds of his fepa-
rxtmg
fy] Grejor. Lib. 7. E p. (Jg. Orarionem autem Domiiiicam idcirco max poll precem diciinus,quu mos A-
poftolorum tine, ut ad ipCim folummodo oranontni oblationis holtiamconfecraient. ■
[ I J ScsiheDJreitu,y9 ♦[ a ] De Saciara. Eucbaijft. Cap. la. rj.'
288 Defence of the Chap. IF.
ratwg from the Vresbyterian Worfhip, he has not alfoanfwered the"
otherhalfofther/>/f ofhis Book, and jaftified the known Objetlions
againft the Worfhip of thatC/^^^^Z? whofe Communion he pretends to
have embraced. I have hinted at feveral of 'em as l came along, and
they may be found more at length in fome fmall Tra6^s lately publifh-
ed (J?). Was there /V(9////>^ in the Liturgy that he ftartledat? I
obferve, the above cited Mv Smart p. 9. with much AfTurance, bids
his Audience r^^^ it all over ^ and among all the Prayetsthat ^re in it^ fee
. if there be any grayer for the Dead, any worjhpping of Images^ any
fraying to Saints and Angels. I do not lay that there are an} Prayers
for the Dead in tt^ but the Famous Author of the Cafe /?4/^^exprefly
fays p. 189. there are, and proves it from xh^Ordtrfor the Burial of
the Dead^ and from the Prayer for the Church militant in the Commu^
fiion Office: I do not fay that there is any worshipping of Images in it. But
I fay, that many otthe Common Prayer Books are tilled with fuch ?{'
£)ures as are condemned by the /-/t^^;!///'^/ of the Church of £»^/^/;flf, yea
and by the High Church Divines themfelves ; witnefs the la ft ciied
Author ( fuppofed to be Dr Lffly ) who, in his Ccnverjation with the
: Roman Catholick. Nobleman, tell) him p. i ^ 5. Weabjiam from ihe Pi'
■ ^ures or Images of the Saints tn ouy Churches^ becaufe they have been abufed
to Superftition and to avoid Ojf-nce. Now if theyare unlawfali in
Churches, how is it poffible they can be lawful! in Books appointed
for the Church-Service ? I'hat fame Author likewile in the fame
Place approves ohheZeal oi tLprphamus^ who finding a Linncn Cloth
hung up in a Church Door ( it is likely to keep out the Wind j where-
on was a Picture of ChnftoroifomcSatnt., tore it and ordered a dead
Corps to be buried in it. And lamented the Super Hition he faw com-
ing by thdQ Pictures and Images then beginning to creep into the
Church. Yet in Ewg/^W not only the Common r ray er Books,* but
even the Bible it felf is filled with Hctures of Chriftand the Saints;
witntfs the Bible, printed London by Charles Btll, and the Executrix
oiThotnas Neivcomb deceased printers to the Queen^s mofl ex< client Majefy^
1708. Many Copies of which Impreffion are ftuffcd witn luchPi-
^utes. Are they more innocent in the Btble, than upon aLinnen
Cloth
£ h 2 See the Dialogues becween thcCuvate and the Countiyjnan &c
Chap. V- Presbyterian Spirit, 289
Cloth hanging in the Church Door? Yea, which is moft abomi-
nable, there are feveral Obfcene Pictures among 'em, particularly
that of ^^oah Uncovered Gen. IX, Lot and his two Daughters Gen.
XIX, David and Hathjh>^ba 1 1 Sam. XF. Finally, I do not fay there
is any praying to Saints and Angels in the Common Prayer-Book.
But 1 do fay, that the confecrating Churches and Days to them,
and the appointing particular Offices upon thefe Days to their Honour
isthelikert Thing to worfhipping them that lean conceive. Bc-
fides, did >Mr Rhtnd's nice and fcrupulous Confcience never bogle
at thQ Ceremonies of Human Invention ? If the Church have Power
to iniHture iuch, file has certainly Power to make a new Bible ; For
there is no {uch Power given her in the old one : Or if there is, cer-
tainly Pioteftanis have been much in the Wrong to the Chijrch of
Rome, But I am not now toinfift on thefe Things.
CHAP. V.
Wherein Mr. Rhind'j* Fourth Reafon for Hif
Separating from the Presbyterians vi^ That
1 heir ipirir isdiam-^trically Oppofite to that
of the Gofpel, is Examined^ * Irom P^ 185,
to the End.
I
■^ H E Meaning of th's Reafofj is, That Presbyterians
are ihcarrtate Dtvtii : And the Intendment of it is.
That all Perfons who regard Confcience or Duty
fhould hang out a Bloody Flag againfl 'em, and rife
up with Oiie accord, and fpoil Their Goods and de-
O 0 ftfoy
Q^a Defence of the Chpp. V.
ftroy Their Perfons ; or, to fpeak in Dr. SacheverePs much more e-
legant Stile, That the Bifliops ought to thunder out the EcclefiaiH-
cal Jfiathema's ag2im^ Them, and let any Power on Earih DARE
reverfe them ; and that the People fhoa'd treat Them like grow"
itjg Mifchttfs or infettious Plagues ^. This is indeed fomewhat hard ;.
but fuch is the Epi/copal Charity, fuch are the mercituU principles
wherewith they (eafon Their new Converts, and fuch is the Ufage
we are to expeQ whenever the Sins of the Nation fhall ripen to
that Height as to provoke a Holy God to let in Fre/acy upon it. But
to make way for Particulars.
The Preshyteriafis t\Q\thev are nor defire to be of thofe whojVyy?/-
fe thmfelves. They know and confefs that there are Tares in Their
Field as^ell d^sWhtat ; and^are fenfible that They have the outmoft
Reafon to cry with the Publican God be mercifuU to us Sinners':
But they think it a very fhamelefs Thing in the Eftfcopdians^ that
Tky. fhouM be the firft who take up Stones tocaft at Them : For,
if the Presbyterians are great Sinners^ I'm affraid ( were that the Enqui-
ry ) the Epifco fait af?s wou'd not be found to be very great Saints,
Our Saviour has given us an excellent Rule whereby to judge of
Men's Spirits, By their fruits ye jhall know Them, I hope it needs
not be deem'd a Reflection upon Them, or an immoderate flatter-
ing of our Selves to afBrm, ThsLtihQ Presbyterians, generally fpeak-
ing, are as D6w«^ towards God, as frequent at Their Prayers; and,
10 outTVArd Appearance (for God only knows the Heart.) as fer-
vent in Them as the Preiatifis. That They fwear as feldom by
the Name of God, as feldom tear open the Wounds of our Blefs-
ed Saviour, and as feldom imprecate Damnation upon Themfelves
or others as the Epijco^altans. That They are as Sober and Tem-
l^rate, go as feldom Drunk to Bed, are as mild in Theit Carriage^,
as little given to Bullying or BluRering, as thofe of High-Chnrch,;
That They are as j/;/// in Their Dealings with Their Neighbours,
2s open Handed to the Indigent, Their Poor as cofitenr, Their Rich
as Humble, that They make as kind HGsbands, asdutifull Wives j.
as carefull Patents and as obedient Children ; as jufl Maiteis ^nd as
faithfull Servants, as thofe that live in Communion with the htlhop.
No.;
• Serin, FaJTc Biethr.cn p. 3S,
Chap. V. Presbyterian Spirit ^91
No Man that's capable of making Obfervations, and is not quite
loft to Ingenuity, will deny any ofthefe Things. If I had fa id more,
and affirmed, That * Outrage, Murder and AlTyflTinations are the
* known PraQice of the Highflyers, as well as of the bigotted Pj-
* pi/is^ and that Their true Mother Tongue is, I will mt fail to cut
* your Throat by G-d, it wou'd be thought hard ; yet I might be very
well excufed, becaufe Mr. Biffet a Presbyter of the Church of £/;^-
laffd hzs faid every Word of it before Me (^c J,
But, that Mr. i^/^/W may have all due Advantage againft the Pre-
sbyterians yTh^rQ are many Things he has charged Them with as
very odious, which They not only freely confefs, but boldly avow.
Such as, tor Inftance. Firfly When He charges Them p. 1 89. That
They believe uncommon Meafures of the Spirit of our Lord to be Hill nt*
ceffary in the (l^ork of Converfion. The whole Catholick Church of
Chrirt in all Ages ftill believed fo ; and I never fufpeQed but that
tbofe of the Epi/copal Communion had believed fo too, till their new
Difciple, whom, no doubr. They have inftrutled in all Their ^r-
cana^ inform'd Me otberwife. The Scripture tells us That // any
Man have not the Sprit of Chrifl He is none of His: But to (ay,
that this Spirit is common to all the Baptized Swearers, Corfers,
Whoremongers and Adulterers through the Country, or that it is
Common to fuch who live in a habitual Negled of God or Uncon-
cern*dnefs about their Souls and Eternal State, even tho' They
are free of Scandalous Sins, This I judgetobe therankeft Blafphe-
my. And- if that Spirit be not common to all fuch Perfons, then
certainly it is an uncommon Spirit, or there are «»c<?wwo« Meafures
thereof by which good and Pious Men are aQcd. Secondly^ Wtien He
charges Them,/^/rf, with teaching That the beH Attions of Men before the
Grace cf God are but fo many fplendid Sins. They own They do be-
lieve this, as we have feen betore p. 10. the Church of England does.
Thirdly^ When he charges Them p. 19$. That T/^^r have a hidden
Spice of Devotion in Their Tempers, They are fo far from being afhamed
of this, that They pray, Would to God there were more of it. Fourthly^
When He Charges Them ibid. That upon the Qommiffion of foma Griev-
ous 6», They are affected with horrible Appnhenfwns. The Presbyterians
O o 2 own
£ c J Ubi Supra p. 8.
292 Defence of the Cbap, V,
own that, in that Care,tbcv oirghi to bs fo : For, they know that it ex-
pofes them to the Wrath of God ; and believe, that iiisafearfuU
thing to fail into hi^ Hardi, And tho', in that Cafe, r/:?^?> Souls (that-
l may ufe Mr Rhihd^s Words p- 1 89 J mdcommonlj thar Bodies too Are>
tr)thegreAteJi Diforder^ yet, they find that the Ho!y Men of God
upon Scripture Record have been the fame Way aflPeded in the like-
Cafe. Thus D^z'/^i^Pfal. XXXVIII. ^,4, 5. There is no Soundnefs in
myFleflj^ hecaufe of thine Anger \ Neither ts r. here any Refl in my Bones,
huAufeofrnySin. For mine Iniquities are gone over mine Head: As an
heavy Burden they are too heavy for me. My l^^ounds jlink^ and are corrupt :
Becaufe of my Foolijhnefs, In Hke Mznntv Hernan Pf LXXXVIII. 14,
I 5, Lord why caflefi thou off my Soul ? Why hideH Thou Thy Facejrom me ?
I am afflicted and readie to die, from my Touth up : While Ifufftr thy Ter*
rorsl am dijlra^ed. The Bifhop of 6V/^/w, when inftruciing Mini*
^Qvs(d) how to deal with thofe of their People that are troubled in
Mind, delivers himfelf thus. * '5ome have committed ^»£?r«?^«/ 5/W, ,
* which kindle ^iStorm in their Confciences; and that ought to be.
* cherifhed, till they have compleated a Repentance proportioned to
* the Nature and Degreeoftheir Sin. Thus he, and thus everyone,,
who is not quite abandoned oiGod, wouM teach. But Mr Rhind is not
for having People affected with horr i(?le Apprehenponsu^onthQCom^
miiTion of grievous Sins, much lefs (or having thefe Apprehenfions
cherifhed till they are brought to Repentance. What Times are we
relerved to ! Fifthly, When he charges them with a ferious Air p. 202, ,
with 3. peculiar P^ehemencym Preaching,with a Prectfenefs of Conver fac-
tion p. 204, with Difcourfesof the Love of God and Chrift, and fweet
Communion with the Father and the Son p. 205. The Presbyterians are.
fo far from being angry at this Charge, that They are forry there is-
too little Ground for it; and They are heartily forry that the Epifcopal<
Clergy fhou'd have had fo little Regard to Piety, to the Honour of
Religion, and to their own Reputation with all furious People^ as
to have cherifhed fuch a Book.
For befides thefe Inftances, Is it pofTibte any thing can be more.
Vrophane, than to jeft, as he does p. 194 &c, upon People's Exercifi.
of Soul about their Eternal Concerns ? Does not the Apcftfe com-
mand';
[ d J Paltoial Caie IV. Edit. p. lyS.
Cl^ap. V. Presbyterian Spirit. 295
mand Timothy i Fp. IV. 7 to Exercife Himfelf unto Godrmefs ? Nay
does he not command all Chriftians to work out Their Salvation with
FEAR and TREMBLIMG ? Has the Efifcopd Party found out
an eafier Way of getting to Heaven ? Is it polTible any Thingcan
be more prophage th^in His charging Vresbjterians p. 200. with re-
folving much of the Spirit of Religion into Amorous Recumbencies^
and that They thmk that They'^ll recommend Themfelves to God after
the very fame Mltwner as to their MiHrefses ? Was not this plainly
intended to burlefque the Scripture? Is there any thing more fa-
miliar in the Scripture than to reprefent the Intercourfe 'twixt
God and the Soul by the Love of the bridegroom and the Br;Wf, of
the Hufband and the Wife ? And if thefe ftudy to recommend
themfelves to each other by an Agreeablenefs of Temper, and do-
ing what They know will be well-pleafing to each other; is it
culpable in the Soul to ftudytobe affimulated to God, to be made
Partaker of the Divine NAture^ and to do what is well plea fing ia
His fight? What are his amorous Recumbancies but a Cf?w/W Phrafe
whereby he defigned to ridicule the Scripture Expreflitn Cant. VIII.
5. Leaning upon her Beloved, which is hterally the Englifb of it? Is
it pofBble any thing couM be more Prophane than to ftrick at (as
be does p. 190; the Work of Regeoeration through the fides of
the Presbyterians, whom he reprefentsas talking of ' Their feeling
* the ftrugglings of the Babe of Grace in the Ploje of bringir>g
^ furth of^Children^ a paflage, faith he, of the Prophet impertinently
' applyed by them to this purpofe ? For was there ever any
Chriftian that denyed the Turning of the Soul to God to be expreifed
in the Scripture by the Birth of a Child? Don't the Arminians,
Does not the Church o^ Rome her felf awn this? And is there
not the greateft Reafon for it, if we confider either the Difficulty
or the Greatnefs of the Change wrought upon the Soul thereby ?
Was there ever any Cbriltian who apply ed that pjlTage of the
Prophet JO any Other purpofe than that of the Turnif/g the foul to God?
Even Grotius Himfelf upon the place applys it thus, 'That Ephrain^
* was not wife who fo long delayed to repent and turn to God,^
*and To to deliver Himlclf out of his Calamities. Cou'd theie
be any Thing more Wicked than to load the Presbyterians^ fas he
does p. 197. )with the Scandal of NhjorWeir tlaat Son of Perdi--
tiOH;, -
294 Defence of the Cbap^ V^
tion, who^ faith he, prayed thofe who jowed with him into Raptures:
For, fuppofing it were true he had done fo, which yetMr Khwd
and all his Party can never pro«/e, how couM this aflPe' i the Pr^-
shytertans'^ Was there not a jf/i^^^^^annong the Twelve Difciples?
Can any Man prove but that He was equally gifted with the
Red ? Yet who ever reproached either Chrift or the College of the
Apoftles on his Account? Or who dare fav but that God may
employ fuch as are Sons of Terdition themfelves as Inftrunients of
Salvation to others ? Cou'd any thing be more Wichd than to
reprefent (^as he does p. 190. igS^ih^ Presb'^tcrtans ^s dotrg tx"*
cution upon themfelves through Defptir ? There is no doubt but
Vresbperiar/s are liable lobeoppsekd with Melancholy as well as
others, and that fome in that Communion may fin themfelves io far
out of the Favour of God, as that in his jult Judgment he may give
them up as a Prey to Satan. But why fhouM the Presbyterian
Spirit be reproached with this ? Tho' the News Prints from Lon^
don ^ tell us that, la fl Year, from the \6ih oWecember 171 2 to the
i$rh o^ December 171 3, there were ^4 Perfons, within the Bills of
Mortality, guilty ot Self-Murder, will any Body therefore charge
Prelacy 2ind Liturgy therewith, tho' rampant tliere ? Becaufe lean
name a famous Divine of the Church of England who trufs'd up
himfelf in his Canonical Belt, were it therefore juft that I fhou*d load
the Spirit of the Church ot England therewith ? ^ri
Mr Rhind does indeed name Two Books viz, Shepherd^sjincere Con'
yert, and Guthries Trial of a faving Inter eft inChrift, as leading Men
into that Courfe, or into deceitfull Hopes founded upon Animal
Imprcflions. Asfor yixShepherdi^sEook^ I am not fo much concern'd
about It, he was a Man that as I'm informed had Eptf copal Orders, and
wasfometimesof Emanuel CoViQg^ in Cambridge, And 1 will not under-
take to defend fome Peculiarities he has in his Writings ; let Mr Rhmd,
xvhois rnore obliged, do it at his beft Leilure. But that there is any
Thing in that Book that has the leait Tendency either to drive
Men into Defpair, or to encourage them to bottom their Hopes of
Heaven upon falfe Grounds, I abfolutely deny, and challenge Mr
Rhind
See the Evening Pojl Numb. 683.
Chap. V. Presbyterian Sp/m^ 295
Rhi»d to prove It : For hitherto he has a8ed as an avowed Calumhu
Ator, in not daring to cite fo much as one PafTage of the faid book
for making good his Charge.
As for Mr Guthrie^ he was a genuine Presbyterian, his Book is writ-
ten in a moft familiar Stile, adapted to t\\t Capacity of every com-
mon Reader, and to the Fi?^///?^ of every good Lhrirtian ; And God
hasfo fignally bleiled it with Succefs, that no one Book can be nam-
ed, written by any Scots Man of either Communion, that has been
foinftrumental in bringing oflFPeople from a Courfe either of Vice
or IndifFerency, and in engaging them to Thoughitulnefs and a
Concern about didr Eternal Inierelt, as this has been. Can then Mr
Rhind inftanc^i^erever the Father of Lies was guiky ofa greater
than what he has alledged againft that Book ? No. He was felf-con-
demned, and therefore darM not adventure to cite fo much as one Line
of it for verifying his Charge. But we are not to wonder at this his
ConduQ. For when once a Man proclaims Hoftility againft Ptety in
the general, He finds it neceffary to blow upon every ferious Book that
tends to promote it. I thought it necefTary to give thefe Hintb by
the By, that the World may fee what Men They ?iVQi\\n Jeparate
from the Presbyterians^ and are received by the Eptfco^J Party.
I am now to confider His Argument as he has laid it. Ftrsi^ As
to its M^eig'ht, and then as to its Truth,
In the"f/r/if Place as to its Weight, Suppofing it were^rue, thai
the Spirit of the Presbyterians is diametricaUy oppofite to that of the
Qofpd^ wou'd that ALONE juftify a Separation? Mr. Rhmd af-
firms it would ; and pofitivly faies in \\\s penult Page, * That each
* of his Arguments /^^/'^m;/)* is fufficient to warrant the Change he
* has made; and as to this argument particularly, He laies p. 1S5. -
That it mipht ferve in/lead of all thefe He hath urged. I affirm the;
Contrary; and th^t, even fuppofing its Truth, it cou'd not juliify.
a Scparauon, abftra6ting from the Reft. The Truth or Being of a
Church is never to be meafured by the Manners of the Members,
which may be Good and Bad at different Times, and vary as Mea
do. The Church of Ifraei was always, as God had fram'd ir, a
true Church. But \'i Hulinefs of Life had been made a Note of ir,
it might in fome Junctures have been called no Church at aliJ
When our Saviour vifued the World, He cou'd fcarce find any
Frobityv
29^ Defence of the Chap. V.
Probity In it ; and the formal Religion of the Pharifees had made void
real and folid Piety. The Blood of all the ?rophetsw2iS lying upon
them, and through their own Traditions they had made void the
CommandmentsofGod. And yer,notwiihrtanding all this, Chrift:
did not feparate from them. Confequently the like ObjeQion cannot
be a juftifiable Ground of Separation in any other. Thus Dr Tem/oft
now Primate of all England, and who is at once the Honour as well
as Head of his Order,ReafonM {e) againft the Rommifts urging (with
the fame Modefty as Mr R/?/»idoes) Holtmfs of Ltfe as a Note of
their Church. And Ifuppofethe Reafoning x^'ill /Mhold Good. It
wasthen a veryUnchrirtian Ad in Mr Rhindio Jeparate ivomih^
Fresbyterims^ when hisfhining Virtue and bright Example con'd not
have fail'd to have reclaimed 'em, or at leaft lo render 'em inexcufable.
But it is notthefirftfad Lofs they have fuftained, and overcome
too ; as, I hope, they fhall do this.
However, fuppofing the Mf^f/^^r,Ietusconfider t\\QTrutho^\\\s Ar-
gument. This I fhall do by examining the Particulars he infifts on.
Having fpent Two or Three Pages in defcribmg the Spirit of the Gofpel^
and what he means by the Sfirii of a Tarty : He alledges I. Thai the
VresbyterianSpmtis EfJthuftaftiCAl.\\,T\\^i it is a meer Animd or A/<?-
chAnicd%^\K\i,\\\. That it is a p4r?/W Spirit, damning and denying
Grace to all but their own Party. I V. That it is a /y^^'^on? andw^<«» Spi-
rit. V. That it is a mdtcious ^unforgiving Spirit. VI. That it is an «»-
converfib/e Spmu VII. That it is a Disloyal, Rei?e//wus Spirit. VIII.
That it is a Spirit oiDivifion, IX. That it isdrnVnuetghbourly^ LruU
and Barbarous Spirit.
Here is a very formidable Mufter; yet, after all, not very dapt*
gerous. For, Mr Rhind has been fo well natured as not to cite fo much
asone L/»^outofany Presbyterian Author for proving 4»> I hing of
all this ; Tho'that was,rmfure the moji^ perhaps the Wjy habile
Way of doing his Bufinefs cfFcdually. JSiay, tho' the greateli Part of
his Charge turns upon Matter of Fatt ; yet he has not cited lo much
zsone Hiltonan, great or fmall,ofeither Side, for making it good. But
luch lb the Hpif copal Way of writing, and we mult not complain. Ham
rangue
£ e J On BcU,irmin's X. Note of the Churck.
Chap. V, Presbyterian Spirit. 297
rapigue and D?r/^w4//ow are All- Powerfull Engines when play'd by
VL Ca»of7ic.il Hind: And when T/;^ are at (o much Pains to labour
Their Periods into a Cadence, 'tis Rudnefsand 111 Manners in us to abk
for Proof, the infixing on which wou'd fpoil the Harmony oftheir
Rhetorick. However, we muft crave Leave to enquire a little into
the Particulars of this Charge.
I. He charges the Presbyterians w'whznEnthufiajlicalS^mt, But
on what Grounds? * ift.faithhe p. 200, Their moft
' admired PradicalSvftems contain Nothing but the The Presh).
' very DregotA/;/?/f//w, and a J^^'^^^wnolels unintel- terian Spirit
' ligible, th^n th?it oi Jacoh Behme» or Molitjo, Well not Enthufi
what are thefe Pr apical Syftems ? He isfo far from AJlicat.
citeingany Thing out of 'em, that he does not To much
2isname any of 'em, except the Tiro already mention'd m\z. Shepherd
&■ Guthrie. For Vindication of Mr Guthrie^s Book, I ask no more of any
Perfon, but that he'll perule itferioufly ; andif,after he has done, he
can fay there is any other Mypcijm or Enthuftafm'm it, than what the
Go^x^^teddys ; Nay, than what everyMd^n whuis concerned about
hisSoul/f^^/j, I'll frankly forgive him.
Plainly, the Import of that Syftem is this. That the great Work
every Man has to do in this World is to fecure Eternal Happinefs
to Hirafelf, That there are indeed fome Perfons bleffed with the
Advantage of a Religious Education; and the Grace of God fal-
ling in therewith ; They are t fjj f n fih /j irain^d up to Piety and Vir-
tue, and find Themfelves in a fixei Habit thereof, without being
able to gi^e a di(l:in6\ Account how it began, or by what fenlible
Steps it has arrived at fuch a Height. But then the far greater
Pait of Baptized Perfons fpend a great Part of their
Life either in a Courfe of l^ice and Ltudnefs^ or at beft in
Indijferemy and Carelefwefs about their Eternal Salvation. God, who
is an Infinue Lover of Souls, and wills not that they fhou'd perifh;
is gracioufly pleafcd, in His own good Time, by His Spirit, work-
ing by thefe Ways He has appointed, to awaken them into a thought-
full Temper, and to alarm them of their Danger. He engages
them feiioufly to compare their Heart and Life with the Law of
God. And, upon the doing thif^, they cannot but difcover a va(t
Contrariety and Contradidion between thenn. He engages them
p p like wife
298 Defence of the Clup. V.
likewife fericufly to lay to Heart the Threatmfigs o( God, and the
dreadfull Things His Law has awarded againft iuch Criminals as
they are: And this cannot but affe£l them with the mcft horrible
Jppreher/JIons, For, who can be eafie either in Body or Mind un-
der the Thoughts of having God for his Enemy ; and under the proJpeCf
of gertifig Hell for hi's Portion ? God ispleafed to excercife them with
fuch Thoughts, till he fees they are duly humbled, and in Earned:
convinced that it was a. bitter and evil Thing to depart from the Living
God, But then,God does not projeO for the Uneafinefs ot His Creatures;
nor require Sorrow for Sorrow's Sake, but that they may be the
more watchfull againli Sin in Timecomeing, and the more affe^^ed
with His Goodnefs in providing a Method of Delivery for them.
And therefore^ when He has Exerci/ed them fo long and to fuch a
Height as is needfull for attaining thefe Ends upon them •, He is
pieafed to begin thejr Relief by intimating to them, by means of
thti Gofpel, a Poffihility of Salvation through Jefus Chrift. Yet even
this is not fufficient to determine the Soul to God. For, be the Re-
medy never fo foveraign, yet it can do no good to fuch as don't
apply it; whether through Defpair, that it will not be effeclual;
or through a falje Hope that the Wound will not prove deadly.
And therefore, yet further, God, by the Internal Operation of His
Spirit, in the Way of Gofpel Means, gives a new Turn and Byafs
to the Soul, not only perfwades it that it is pcffible to be laved ;
and that it is ablolurly needfull to fall in with the Gofpel Method
of Salvation ; but tffedually determines it to do fo; fo that the Soul
heartily renounces aU Sin, fincerely engages in a Courie of Vniverjal
Holinefs', and, in that Method, trufts to ihe Merit and Righteouf-
nels of Chrift allennarlyh^: Acceprance with God, Pardon of Sin, and
comeing to Heaven at laft. Now, when a Perfon finds his Cafe
altered thus fo much to the better ; is it polfible but that he muft
needs ytji^/Vf with Joy unfpeakable and full of Glory'^ While he goes
on in the Way of Hohnels, is it poflible but he muft find that the
Ways of Wifaom are H'^ays of Pleajantnefs, and Her Paths Peace?
When he is fenfible that his Eternal Happinefs is fecured by anln-
tereft in Chrift, is it poflibie but that he muft rejoice tn the Hope of
the Glory of God} If ac any Time he flack his i-'iligenQe, and fall
into Sin, through the Infirmity of Nature or the Violence of Sa-
Chap. V. Presbyterian Spirit. 209
tanVTentations, and thereupon the Cor^foUtions of the Holy Ghoft
are withdrawn, has he not the greateft Reafon tobedoeacd both
in Body and Mind, and to pray with the I'jalmiH Vi. LI.8. ii.
Make me to hear Joj am Gladm/s : That the Booes which Thou hasi
broken may rejoice. Cap me not away from thy ?r eft nee : Take not Thy
Holy Spirit from Me. Or, if God, even in a Sovtraign Way over-
caft His Soul; that he may long fo much the more tor the uninter-
rupted joys of Heaven ; Is this any other than what the moft
Holy Men recorded in Scripture have felt?
This is the Import of Mr Guthrh\ Book, and indeed of all the
other Yractical Sy [terns written by the Presbyterians on the fame Subjed.
Is there any thing of £;?//'«y/4y7» in all this? Any irregular Heats? Why
then wou'd Mr Rhind adventure toexpofe thQhternal Part ot Religi-
on in lb ludicrous a Manner as he has done? Certainly, if ever any
Man was guilty of the Sin oi doing Deffitiumo the^nit oj Grace ^
heisfo. This, which Ihav£told, is that which hecalhthe Long and
fenfelefs iitory of the Manner of Gods dealing with the Souls of his Ete6t,
Thefe the Hrange Things they talk of their Manifejlations and Dtjertions.
This the fuddenSiix^ irrefijiible Manner ofGod's influencing them by
hisSpirit, which Mr /</;/W thinks fo much a jf^/; but which no
Man that fears God will allow himlelf to think the fame Way of. Tis
true, the determining Turn that the Spirit of God gives to the Soul is
acknowledged by the Presbyterians to be Injlantaneous ; but then
They acknowledge too a great Deal o{ Prep. oratory Work, and Mr Gr/-
thrie^ in particular largely infiftson it : So that Mr Rhinu\ reprefenting
the Presbyterians^, 195. as pleading for Converfions ; attended with
fuch Circumftances as thefe of Paul 8e^c were, is only an Inftanceof
ihitCalumnyto which he hasfo intirely given up himfelf.
2dly, Another Ground, whereon Mr Rhind wou'd found the
Chsiigeo^ Enthufraf/n ag^ind ihQ?resbyterians, is. That they pretend, .
as he alledges p. 190, to Illuminations and Raptures and to the molt
extraordinary Infpirat ions; and then he falls adifputing very wighr-
ly in order to difprove their being extraordinarly inipircd, and
very frequently compares them to i\\Q Modern Prophets \n dmv Agi^
rations. But how does he prove that They pretend to any iuch '
Thing? No Way. He has not fo much 3s offered at doing fo, nor •
adduced c?/?^ Syllable for that Purpofe. What then h to be thought
of '
200 Defence of the Chap. V.
of himandhlsFellow Writers whoo-duiarlyta'k at the fame Rate?:
Is it noi plain that rhsy are imderthe Power of HjfocoKdrlacal Melan-
choly, whereof wild and extravagant imsgi nations, for which there
is no Ground, area moftlnfsllible Symptom?
But why did Mr Rhind charge the Presb;^terians with Enthuftafm^
when his own Beloved Party had been fo fcandaloufly Guilty of it ?
Id the F/^y? place, when Enthufiafm was in Falhion in the Time of
the late Civil Wars, who were the great Mafters of it? The Presbyte-
rians in Scotland preachM and wrote againil it; but the Epfcofdians
in England cheriflied it; and lome of their Clergy were the prin-
cipal Writers for it, for Inftance, Mr Wtll'um Erbery who owns
Himfelf to have been Epl/copully ordain'd. There is a thick Qtiarto
Volume of his Lucubrations extant under the Title of his TtJlimO'
ny^ from which 'tis evident that "Jacob Behmen might have gone
to School tohira to learn Enthufiafm, idly^ Does not P ^r/'^r who
writes againft the Confejfion of Eaith^ and has prefixed to it a Poem
againfl: the Synod of Dort and in praife of Armimus, and who
w^as JLift fuch another Proteftant as Mr Rhind^ does not he, I fay,
avow Himfelf an Enthufiaft^ and recommend Jacob Behmen and fuch
others as divinly infpired( / j? 5^/j, Who knows not that Dr
George Garden, one of the firfl; Charader among the Epifcopd
Clergy, is the great promoter of the BourignUn Principles? ^^hly^
Who were they that were moftly carried away by the Modem
Prophets and feized with their Agitations ? I fuppofe the Epijco-
pal Clergy cannot purge theirown Families. $^A^, Does not the
Author of Mr Dodmll's Life confefs that, toward the latter Part of
it^.He feemed to grow not a litde Enthufiajlical'^ Andis it poflible any
one can read his EpiHoUry Difcourje and not be convinced of this.
For Inflance, when he teaches that o*?" Saviour preached to ihe Sepa-
rate Souls who deceafed before His Incarnation^ Se6t. 41. When he
teaches that Water Bdpttjm was given to the Jeparaie Souls of t hum who
had, no M(-ans of obtaining it when living Se6l. 42. When he teach-
es: that Renunciation of the Devil was performable in the /eparate fUte
hyrthofe who cou'*d not know their , Duty before Sect. 4^. Wlien he
teaclies that the Gentiles received the Spirit by our Saviour'* s Bapttjrn tn
thtit
i i ] Page f, 14. &C.
Ghap* Presbyterian Spirit. '301
theiy /eparare [late Seft. 44. When he teaches that the Jpoflies
being thcmfelves decf-a/ed preached to the deceafed Gentiles. SeG:. 45.
Were there ever more dilka61ed Notions than thcfe vented in
Bedlam} I think then it were the Wifdom of the £/>/A(>/'4/ Party
for their own fakes to drop the Charge of EnthufiafM againd the
Frabyterians. I fhall conclude this with obierving by the By,
That Mr Rhi-^d writes inaccuratly when he Yoaks "Jacob Bthmen and
Molims together. Molinos^i greateft Errors, for which He fecms
to have been fo feverely perftcuted by the Church of Rome^ were
according to the beft intormation the Dodrines of Vredejlinatwn
and its Dependencies, and his teaching People to place their Devo-
tion rather in internal Prayer and Communion with God than in
numbering their Beads (^ ): Whereas all the Enthufiafisj^xo, mor-
tal Enemies to the DoQrines of \?redefti?^atim &c, and Mr ?oiret
owns that he levelled his Oeconornie Divin mainly againft thefe Do-
ftrines. And Dr Garden does the fame in his Writings. So much
for the Charge of an EmhujiaHtcal Spirit.
11. He C harges th e fresbyterians wiih a meerly Animd or Mechk*
meal Spirit, and that all their Hopes and Fears,
Joys and Sorrows in Religion are meer Mecha- Not meerly
Kifm, the EffeQ-of Mdancholy, Imagination 2^.T\dL Jni- Jnimal or
mal ImprefTions. Hear him a little p. 196. ' He Mechanical.
' ( that is, a Vresbyterian after the CommilTion of
* fome grievous fin) dreams of Nothing but of Hell and Damna-
' tion, which in the Hurry of his paflTions perhaps forces him to
* difparch Himfelf. But if the black Blood fhall chance to be
* fwectned by a Mixture of better, and if the Violence of His
* Paflions is abated, He begins 10 conceive better hopes. And if
* He fhall chance to recover from this Fever, (o that his Blood does
' again glide after' its due Manner, he concludes that all is well
* 'with him. Thus heanda great deal more to the fame purpofe.' J is
true, the Presbyterians own themfclves to be compound Beings, and
that they confift of T/# as well as Spirit^ and believe that God
applys
£ g ] SeeSuppleineiuca Dr. Burnei's Travels.
>5 02 Defence of the Chap, V^
applys HimfBlf'totbem according to the Make of Human Nature,
and difcovers Infinite Wifom and Goodnels in doing fo; for He
knows our Ffawe and remembers we are DuH. But, becaufe the Jni*
mal AflPe£^ions operate Senfibly, either upon the Commiflionoffome
grievous Sin, or upon our having made Peace with God, does it
therefore follow that the Spirit of God did not excite them ? Or
that, becaufe- the inferior and bodily Faculties do operate, therefore
the 'superior Faculties do not? Is it pofTible but that the Soul and
Body muft work mutually upon and afFed each other while we
are in the embodied State ? Nayj will they not do fo even after
the RelurreSion which is the moft ferft£i State? Does He not
kow that a Separate State is a preternatural one which Sih alone
has made us liable unto. The truth is, I think Mr Rhwd, alter
all his Roafts, tobe but very indifferently qualified to write Le£>ures
upon the Animal OEconomy, and that he is a perfed Stranger to
Solon'*s Precept Nofce Teipfum^ as well as to the Exercife of piety.
And therefore, ere he begine to write his Lectures, I cannot but
recommend to him the perufal of that excellent Difcourfe concern-
ing the Mechanical Operation of the Spirit annexed to that very pious
Book called A Tale of a Tub. If Mr Rhind can recover the pa-
pers neceffary for the filling up the Lacuna p. 303. his Bufinefs
is done: For the Bookfeller has affured us, that In them the whole
Scheme of Spiritual Mechanifm rvas deduced and explained^ with an Jp'
tearance of great reading and obfervation', thd* it was thought neither f of e
nor convenient to print them. Such devout Books tend mightily to
the promoting of Religion, and many fuch the Church of Eng-
land Clergy has bleffed this finfuU Age with: And it cannot but
raife Mr Rhind\ Chara£ler to Communicate fuch laudable Pro-
duQions of his Brethren for the Benefit of the Fublick. But to
go on
If Mr Rhind was fo great an Enemy to every thing of Animal
Exercije in Religion, Why did He join the Church of England :
For, of all other Proteftant Churches in the World, She has aimed
moft at the raifing the Animal Affeflions by her Way of Worfhip,
thourih fhe is founhappy as to attempt it by Methods which our
Bkffed Saviour never inftituted : For what elfe means the Pom-
poufnefs
(Chip. V. Presbyterian Spirit. 503
poufneis of her Serviced What elfe is defigned by the Crfe, 5//r-
plice, Rotchft &c ? What elle hy iht Ceremonies and all that Mi-
mical Cringing and Bowing L fo mach pra£\ifed in thcCha^^cland
Cathedral \X/orl"hip ) which is below the Gravity of a Man nnuth
more of a Mmilter? Can there beany thing ello defigned by all
this, but to bear upon iheSenfesandaffeQihc Imagination? What
is the Surplice and all the other Sacred Accoutrments intended lor,
but to dazle the Ey^s'^. What are the Organs zndi fuigi^ig Bojj de-
figned for, but to charm the tVj? Why are the Prayers and the
whole Devotions parceled into fuch Shreds, but that the Anwtd
Tart may be gratified with Variety? Mr. Rhind i\\Qi\ ought to
have been aware of touching upon this Point : For, after all the
AbftraQion he and his Party pretend to, the World fees well e-
nough that they are but Flefh and Blood hkc their Neighbours.
III. He charges the Presbyterians with 2i partial Spirit, damning
and denying Grace to all but their own Party. * So
* few, faith he p, 191 are they to whom they allow this Not a Par-
* faving Grace, that, if we {hall except the Apoftles, tialyDamrf
* and thofe of that extraordinary Age, and St Auguflin^ ing Spirit.
* They'll allow none to have been blefled with it, till
^ it was vouchafed tofome Presbyterians in the WGi\o^^cotUndy about
' a hundered Years ago, who convey 'd it to their Succeffors, and
* infeded fome of their Englijh Brethren therewith. And p. 204.
They confine^ (nithhey the Grace of Converfion^ and confeq^uentl) Eletiiori
te their Qivn Party, This is indeed a hainous Charge. But how has
he proved it ? Nay notfo much as the leaH Document has he o^fe-rf^
to produce for that Purpofe. The Epfcopal Veracity mult ftand tor
all. But the Presbyterians deny the Charge till They (ball fee ic
proved.
In the mean Time / charge Mr Rhind and his Party with a Pmial^
'Damning Spirit, and fhall prove it ere i go further. EtrH I charge
Mr Rhmd with it. For, fpeaking of the Spirit of the Vresbjtenans
p. 216. Heexprefly fays that tt drives them from the Communion of the
Churchy and cuts them off from the ordinary Communications of the Holy
Ghofl, Belides, hehas ("aswehaveheaid bet'ore; damned the whole
Frf?;<?/4»^ Churches that want /i/'/App4/ Govcrnaient. Nay, he has
1> p 2 damned
504 Defence of the Chc-^p, V.
damned the whole Catholkk Church of Chrifl: by declaring herDo-
€ix\nQS fundament ally falfe andpermcious. Secondly^ I charge his Party
with it. Befides many Shoals oflefTer Authors, I inftance, forthe
Purpofe Mr Dodmil the Standard- Bearer of the Party, In his Book of
Schifm, the Sum of the XV Chapter is. That the Spirit of God is not
given, nor his Graces communicated, nor Pardon of Sin beflow'd,
nor Salvation to be expeded without the Sacraments. The Defign
of his XVIII Chapter is to prove, That the Validity of the Sacra-
ments depends on the Authority of the Perfons by whom they are
adminiftred. The Defign of his XIX Chapter is to prove, That no
other Miniil:ers have this Authority of sdminiftring the Sacra-
ments but only they who receive theirOrders in ihaEpi/copilCowmuni-
on.TheSumofall is, NoBi{hopnoMinifter;No Minifter No Sacra-
ment; No Sacrament no Salvation ; E*go no Bifhop no Salvation.
Or take it in his own Words {hj ' The alone Want of Communion
* with the Bifhop makes Herfons Aliens fromGod and Chri[I'^ Stran^
* gersto the Covchant of Promife and the Common Wealth of I frael-^-'^
*" They murt certainly be deprived of all thofe resl Enjoyments
* and Holy Rclifhes which devout Souls experience even in this Life
' in the Communion with their belt Beloved. In a Word, he tells us,
ihzton that Acccount wemuft want the Comforts of Religion here,
and lofe the H(?/>o of enjoingthemheFfeafcer. Say now, good Reader,
if it is not modeft in the Epijcopal Pa rii y to charge the ^ resbyterians
with a D4?w;?/>^ Spirit. Whether Athtifm, LaziDefsor Uxonoufnefs
(as Mr R///;?^ alledges againft the VreshytertansJ can engage Men of
Senfe to entertain fuch /^hantaftick Principles, Ifhall notfay: But
fure T am, they come not from the Spirit ot God, nor are confiltent
with the Peace of the Church (^ Nation,
IV. He charges the Presbyterians with a Narrow and Mean Spi'
rit. Upon what Evidence? i/l, * Chrift;,
Not a Narrow or * Jatth He^ dyed for all tVen, but the Pre-
Mean Spirit. * sbytertans confine the Merit of His IJeath
* to a ¥redefitnated Few p. 207. I anfwer,
T\\^*Pmbyterians acknowledg that Chnft died for all Men in all
.^ _^ that
' ' ' C -k J Ciiae prwrfthooa ' qiip."XllI. " Sea. ^.
Chap. V, Presbyterian Spirit. 505
that Senfe the Scripture meant ever that ExprefTion. 'Tis true They
confine the EfBcacy of his Death to the t*redeji mated, and acknow-
ledg thatChrift's Fiock ("comparativly fpeaking ) is but ^ lit tleon^;
but 'tis falfe that they confine it to a Few: Oa the contrary, ihcy
believe the Redeemed to be pad numbring, and hope, upon tlie Al-
furaiice of the Scripture, Rev. VII. 9. to khoid one Day a grea^
Mult it tide which no Man can number^ of all NatiortSymd Kj^drcds^anci^
People, and Tongues flmding before the Throne, and before the Lnmb,
cloathedwith white Robes^ and Palms in their Hands, and Hymns in
their Mouths. 2dly, * Chrifl: meant, /i///; he, that his Grace flwuld
* extend univerjallj, which the Presbyterians retrain to theiiowa
* Party. I anfwer. The firfl: Part of this Charge is falfe Do8vine,
the latter impudent Cahjmny. The firft Part of it I fay is jalje Do-
Brinej for which (waving other Arguments at this Time; I ap-
peal to the Church of England, which, in her Catechtfm, tho'llie
teaches her Catechumens to {2^^, I believe in God the Son, who hath re-
deemed me and all Mankind, yet fhe exprefly reftridls the ObjeQ of
fandifying Grace ; and teaches the Catechumen to fay, / believe in God
the Holy Ghosi, who fan^tfeth Me and all the Ele^^ People of God, The
latter Part of the Charge, I add, is impudent Calumny, The ?rejbjte-
m«y are fo far from reftraining Grace to their own Party, that they
both believe and profefs that in every Nation he that feareth God and
rvorketh Righteoufnefs is accepted of him.
But then, who knows not that High-Church is guilty of this AV-
rorvnefs and Meannefs of Spirit even to the laft Degree of Scandal ?
Is it not known that They not only deny Grace to Presbyterians,
but even confine the Church of England to their own Party, and
reckon all fuch, even of the Epifcofal Communion, Sch/fmaticks,as
fall in with the Government', nay, in their moft folemn O/fices^ rank
their Epifcopal Brethren of the lower Form in the very fame Clafs
with Pagans. Thus, in their new Liturgy ("/) which they form-
ed after K. Wtlliamh Accefiion to the I'hrone, They prayed in
Terms, Re[lore to us again the Publtck fVorJJjip of thy Name, the re-
Q_ q vtrent
[ I ] See a Paniphiec eiuituled Refections upon .i form ofFrujif Uteljjtt forth [\)i the Jacobitfs oj the
ehurcb of England, printed ioi Richard SMwin^ iC^o.
^o5 Defence of the Ghap. V^
verent AcLmimjtration of thy Sacraments : Ra'tfe up the former Govern^
mem both in Qhurchand State^ thai We may be no longer without Kjng^
without Priefi^ without God in the World, -^dly, ' Chrift's Charity,
^ faith he, relieved all Men indifferently, Enemies as well as freinds
* while the Presbyterian By afs vifibly fways them to favour the
^ Godly, that is, thofe of their own Way. 'Tis anfwered, The
Fresbyterians, as they have Opportunity, do good unio all Men; tho'
indeed, according to the Apoftles Precept, e/ptcial/y unto them who •
arr of the. Houfhold of Faiih, whether of their os^nor any other
Wdy; tho' no doubt, they love thofe of their own Way beftjand
I fuppofe all the World does the like.
In the mean while, tho' 'tis both Vain and finfull to boafl on
this H^ad, yet for flopping the Mouth of Calumny, the Presby-
terians are content it be put to a Trial, which of the Parties have
gone furtheft in their Publick Deeds of Charity to the other ia
their Diftrefs. By all the Information I can have, the Epifco*
psl Clergy, during the whole 2S Years of their late Reign, never
relieved any of their Presbyterian Brethren with fo much as one
ihilling. The Truth is, they durft not ask it, but thought them-'
fejVes happy enough, if they efcaped without being relieved oue
of all their Miferies at once by the COMPENDIOUS Way then
in Fafhion: Whereas, to my certain Knowledg, the Presbyterians have
often relieved rhe Efifmalians, and I hope fliall always continue.:
to do fo in Imitation ofiheir Heavenly Father who is kind even to '
the Bad and theVnthankfuilj'dnd in (pite of the Jpocryphxl Prohibi-
tion Ecclus, XII. 5. Give not to the Vngodly i Holdback thy bread
and give it not unto him,
V. He charges Them with a M^/zV/^/zj and Unforgiving S^mt p,-
209. fo contrary to that which Our Saviour
Not a Malicious 0^ and the BlelTed Martyr "^i Stephen exempli-
Vnforgiving Spirit lied. Well how does He qualifie or prove
this Charge ? Why, * their Rebellious
' Martyrs,- /^i//^ he^ ^^i/fr expreded their Forgivnefs of the Injuries,
^ -which They thought were done them by their fuppofed Perfecuters:
* ^Their Uft Speechvs fo faithfully recorded in Naphidiy and fo much
* admired by the party, containing rather too plaia indications of the
Malice
Chap. V^ Presbyterian Sprit. 507
* Malice and Rancour of their »Souls, when they were Hepping into
Eternity. Thus he. 'Tis true, thefe rebalUous A/jr/^n did not allow
themfelves to die asa Fool dieth, tho, their Hands were bound and
their Feet (and Legs too ) wereoftimes put into themofl: pinching
Fetters. They boldly avowed the Caule for which they died, and
with all Freedom told their Perfccuters of their Injufticc and the
wicked Courfe they were in. And for this Practice they had the
Example of the BleiTed M2inyv !S(epben^ who treated the 6WWr/w
with fharper Language than any is to be found in Napthalt, J'e
Biff'-fiecked^ and uncircumctfed in Heart and Ears, ye do always refiji the
Holy Ghojl : As your Faihers did fa do ye. iVhich of the Prophets
have not your Fai hers per fecuted? And they have Jlain them which jhew'
ed before of the Corning of the "Juji One, of ivhor/i je have been now the
Betrayers and Murderers, A6is VIL 51. 52.
But now as to the Charge it felf. If we fliall find thefe rebeU
liotn ^'lartyrs exprefTing thQiv Forgivnefs of their Enemies: U we
fhall find them doing this in their /<«/ Speeches: If we fliall find
them doing this in their laft Speeches recorded in Na^htalr, will
not this difcover what a Spirit of l^uth and ModeHy that is, the F-
pfcopal Party are poITefled with ? Let us try it then.
The Marquefs of -^^-^//^ who fuffered May 27. 1661. * And,
^ faith He, as I goto make a Reckoning to my God, I am free as
* to 4»; of thefe Calumnies that have gOQp- abroad of me, concern-
' ing the King's Perfon or Government. I was real and cordial
' in my Dtfires to bring the King Home, and in my Endeavours
' for Him when He was at Home, and I had no Correfpondencc
* with the Adverfary's Army, nor any ot them, in the Time when
* His M.4Jefty was in Scotland-^ nor had I ^;y; AcccflTion to His late
' Majefties horrid and execrable Murder, by Counfei or Knowledge
* of it, Of any other Manner of Way. This is a Truth, as I fliall
* anfwer to my Judge— I defire not that the Lord fliould judge
' any Man; nor do I judge any but my Self: I wifli, as the
* Lord hath pardoned me, jo He may pardon them for this and oiher
* Things, and that what they have done to me, may never meet
' them in their Accounts. And 1 pray the Lord prefcrve His
' Majefty and to pour out His beft BlelTings on His Ptrfon and Go-
i vornment. Nalb, Edit. 1693. p. 285. &c.
Q. q 2 Mr.
5o8 Dijemeof the Chap. V.
Mr James Guthrie Minifterofthe Gofpelat Sterlm'who fuffered
Ju»ei. 1661. ' God is my Record, /^/'^^ that in theie things
' for which ientence of Death hath palTed againfl: me, I have a good
' Confcience. IblefsGod they are not Matters of Compliance with
' Se8aries,or Defigns or Practices again ft His Majefty's Perfon or Go-
* vernment of his Royal Father ; My Heart ^I blefs God ) is con-
' fcious unto m Difloyalty; nay, Lojal I have been, and I com-
* mend it unto you to be Layal and Obedient in the Lord. — — -
' The Miftake or Hatred or Reproach of my Enemies I do with
* all my Heavi forgive, and wherein I have offended any of them
* do beg their Mercy and Forgivnefs — I forgive all Men the
' Guilt of my death, and I defire you to do fo alfo : Pray for
' themthatferfecuteyouj nndblejs them that curfe youy blefs I fay and
^ curfe not. Ibid, p. 291. Sec.
The Lord Wariflort who fuffered 'July 11 166-^.^ The good
* Lord give unto them {His £»^w/>i )Repentance, Remiffion and>
* Amend^ment; and that is the worft wifh I wifh them, and the
^ beft Avifh I can wifli unto them. I am free ( as Ifhall now
^ anfwer before His Tribunal) from any Acceflion by Counfel or
* Contrivance^ or any other Way to his late Majefty's Death, or to*
* their making that Change of Government : And I Fray the Lord
* to preserve our prefent King His Majsfty, and to pour out his
' beft Bleflings upon His Royal Pofterity. Ibi^ p. ^01. &c.
Captain Andrew Jrnot who fuffered December 'j, 1666. * And who-''
* ever they be that any Way have been Inftrumental orincenfed
* againft me to procure this Sentence againft me, Godforgivg them
* and I forgive them. Ibid, p. 5 1 6. And in his joint Tefiimony which"
he, with A/V;?^ others who were put to Death the fame Day with
him, fubfcribed in Prifon immediately before they were brought
to theScaffold, he and theyinl'erms acknowledg the King's Au-
thority. * We are, 7-9' they, condemned by Men, and eftceraed by
' many as Rebels againll the King, whofe Authority rve acknowledge :
* But this is our rejoicing the Teftimony of our Confcience. Ibid, p;
307. &c.
Mr. Alexander Robert fon Preacher of the Gofpej, who fuffered"
December I ^,1666, ' I wifh that they may lay the Matter to Heart
* and repent of it, that God w&y forgive them> d^slforgive all Men,'
Chap. V» Presbyterian Spirit, 509
* and particularly M)r/(?» who did apprehend me.— And he is fofar
from entertaining rebellious Thoughts that he declares There was
juft Reajon to think, that iftkjertgtd Oppreffwns had been made known
tehis Majejiy^ his Jul} ice and Clemency nwu^d have provided a Remedj.
Ihid.^, 520. &c.
Mr Hr/g^ A/'/r^/7? Preacher of the Gofpel who fuffcred December
22. 1666. * I do freely pardon all that have AccefTion to my Blood,
* and wifh that it be not laid to the Charge of this finful Land, but
* that God wou'd grant Repentance to our Rulers, that ihcy may oh-
* tain the fame Reconciliation with Him, whereof Imy felf do par-
take. Ibid. p. 3^©&c.
"John Wtlfo» who {'d'^QXt^ at the fame Time with Mr M'kaile, * For
* ray Part I pray that the Lord may blefs our Kjng with BlelTings from
* Heaven.-- And I pray for all that are in Authority under his Majc*
* //7--I can forgive ihtW long done to me in taking away my Life
* for this Caufe, and wifli God to be mercifull to thofe that have con-
* demned me, or have had any Hand in my Death. Ibid. p. 351. &:c.
Mr. 'James M/'/r/j^/ while under the Torture of the Boots Anno 167^.
* And now my Lords, I do freely from my Heart /cr^/w you who
' are Judges fiidng upon the Bench, and the Men who are appointed
' to be about this Fiece of horrid Work, & alfothefc who are vitiating
' their Eyes beholding the fame. And I do intreat,that God may never
* lay it to the Charge of any of you, at I beg God may be pltafcd
^ for his Son Chrift's fake to blot out my Sins and Iniquities. /^/rt'.p.43 1,
James Learmont whofutFuted September 27. 1678. ' As lor J/cxan-
' der Maitland who apprehended me, my Blood lyes direflly atl.is
* Door, whopromifed me then, that nothing Diould reach my Life,
* as he fwore by Faith and Confcience, and his Brother is a!fo
* guilty of my Blood. 1 deJiretliQ Lord to give them Repentance and
* Aif^^if itbepofsible./^'/^. p. 445. And inhis L^rge6//^(^f/; p.450.
He thus delivers himfelf. ' I here moft freely, before I go hence ( with-
' out De fire of Revenge upon the foienamed Ferions, or any ether,
* who have been tiie Occafionofmy Blood fhedding, now in my Jaft
* Words after the Example of my Lord and Mafter ; fay as is men-
' tioned in that Scripture Luke 23. 34. Jndjtjusfaid, UtUr forgive
* them, for ihejknow not what they do. My dear Friends, I^ivemy
f Teliimony againft thatCalumry Qaft upon FreibjteriAns,\hu ihey are
DC*
5 lo Defence of the Chap, V;
' Seditious and Dijloyd 'Perfons, the which Afperfion I do abhorr:
* Therefore, I exhort all People, that they will fhew Loyaltji to
' the Kjf^g, and alt lawful! Magiltrats, and all their juft and law-
' full Commands.
Mr. John I<jng Minifter of the Gofpel who fuffered AuguH 14,
1679. ' The Lord knows, who is the Searcher of Hearts, that
' neither my Defign nor Pradice was againfl: His Majefty's Perfon
* and juft Government, bin I always intended to be lojalto lawful!
' Authority in the Lord. I thank God, my heart doth not condemn
' me of any Dipydtyj I have been lojdj and do recommend it to
' all to be Obedient to Higher Powers in the Lord.-— I blefs the
* Lord, lean freely and frankly /^rg/Ve all Men the Guilt of it, even
' as I defire to be forgiven of God. Pray for them that Perfecute
[ Ton and Blefs them that Curfe Tou, Ibid, p. 469. 475.
'fohn Nilfon of Corfack who fuffered December 14. 1666. ^ I
* pray that the Lord for Chrifli's Sake may freely forgive me, as I
f \idi\ Q forgiven them that have wronged me. Ibid p. 327.
Thefe are the Rebellious Martyrs recorded in Naphtali who ^ever
expreiTed the Forgivnefs of the Injuries they thought were done
them. Rebellious Martyrs th^y were-, for, when ftepping into E-
ternicy, they not only denyed and difowned any Ad of Rebellion :
But fpent their laft Breath in praying for the IQng and in recom-
mending Loyalty to their Survivers. Thefe lafi H'^ords of theirs
which I have cited are no doubt as good Evidence of the Presby-
terian Malice, as their Sufferings are of the Epi/copal Mercy. lean-
not but wifli that the Epifcopal Authors wou'd retain, at leaft,
fome Relique of Modefty and not advance Things, not only without
all Ground, but contrary alfo to the cleared andampleft Teftimony.
I'm fure they cannot but be fenfible how odious fuch a Way of
Writing muft needs make any Party that ules it to God and all
good Men.
They very frequently infift on this Topick of Forgivirsg Enemies
againil the Presbyterians j but Vis in fuch a Way as fufficiently difco-
vers their Meaning. I remember betwixt the Year 1680 &: 1688. there
was no Dodrine more frequently infilled on from the Pulpits of
Edtnburoh than that oi Forgiving Enemies. In the mean Time, the
Gtbbet,
Ghap. V.'' Presbyterian Spirit^ 311
Gibbet^ to fave Expences, was left (landing in the open Street from
one Mercat Day to another for hanging the Whigs, People were
mightily puzzled for a while to reconcile the Epifcopal Preaching
and Pra£^ice together. At laft the fecret was found out ; that the
Meaning was, that their Enemies fliould forgive them\ Bur then,
that they fliou'd forgive their Enemies was a different Cafe. They
muft then take the Sponge to their late Books in which they have
To often libelled the Presbyterians on this Head, and wait till the
Memory of the late Times is worn out, ere they can pcrfwade
People that//;^/> infifling on the Forgivnejs of Enerf/ies is any other
than moil odious Affettation ; juft as when the hiquifnion turns
over a poor Wretch to the Secular Arm, inireatingin the Bowefs
of Jefus Chrift to be tender to Him ; the iVeaning of which is,
that SeculaK Arm muft burn the Poor Creature Quick, on Paia
of Excommunication and a worfe Turn befides. And is there
any other Proof needfull to fliew what a Jell: the Ep if ccpal infilling
on Eorgivnejs of Enemies is, than to read over Mr. Roim^ Book,
efpecially the latter Part of it, which breaths pure unmixed Ma-
lice io^Thirty Pages together, and that too which makes it fo much
the more Ridiculous, without the leaft Shadow of Truth or proof.
If a Man treat me harlbly, however bitter the Things may be
He faies againil me, yet if they are true, and He convinces me that
they are fo, I ought to bear with Him, and 'tis my own Fauk it
I don't profit by the Reproof. But if he charges me wiih the
worft Things, without fo much as offering to convince me, I con-
temn the Malice of the poor Impotent Thing, and cannot revenge
My Self better than by fuff^ring Him to fry in His own Greale,
and prey upon his own Spleen.
YI He charges the Presbyterians p. 209. with an Vnconverjible
Spirit, in that tht^/value themfehes upon the
Sullennefs of thttr Tempers. A very great Not an Vnconvcr-
Fault truh . For certainly Chrillianity is f'^le Spiru.
fuperffrucled upon Humanity, and the
Grace of God was intended not to dellroy, but to improve and
refine It. . And the A,;->o(lle has exprelly commanded cj:> i t'et. Ill
8 Love as Brethren, he piufJl, be Lourtious : . Nor dues Piety ever
appear more charm.ng and engaging than when adoracd v^jct)
312 Defence of the Chap. K
a good Behaviour. But bow does Mr. Rhind prove his Charge ?
Why, Good Reader, He does not lo much as attempt this, nor has
offered fo much as one Syllable for that Purpole. Is it not then as
ealily denyed as affirnfied. And is not the Defender, in all fuch o-
dious Cafes, prefumed to be Innocent till the Contrary is proved.
'Tis true Our Saviour's Defire Cas Mr. Kf6/;?4 fuggefls j of doing
Good carried Him into the Company of the Men of toofe^ as well
as regular Lives, and I believe all Presbyterians, whether Mini-
flers or others, who are piouily inclin'd, are carried, by the fame
Defire of doing Good, into the Company of Men of loofe Lives,
when there is the leaft Hope that their doing fo will not rather
harden them in, than retUim i\iQm from their Loofnefs. Burthen,
That they keep at a Diftance from them in their Revells, ftudy a
Frecifenefs of Converfation, and^tvill not run with them to ihefame Ex
cefs of Riot, however Jlrangly they may be thought of on that Ac-
count ; This they are fo far from reckoning a Fault, that they a-
vow it, and are forry there is not more Ground for charging them
with it. Mr. Rhind may call 'em Puritans on that Score, or give
'em what other ill Names He pleafes; But then, what comforts
them is, that the Apoftle Paul was juft fuch another Puritan-, and
not only warrants them in, but obliges them to fuch Precifnefs and
AbftraBion, commanding them I.Cor. V. ix. With fuch Perfons not
fo much as to eat. And 11. Thejf. III. 14. To note fuch Perfons, and
have no Company with them. Our Bleffed Saviour was inch a Phy-
fician as w^as not in Danger of catching the Dileafe from the Patient.
But when virtuous Perfons allow themfelves to haunt bad Com-
pany in their Bottle Converfation, I'm affraid it too often falls our,
that they themfelves are infeded, and the vicious not reformed.
However, whatever Vnconverftblenefs the Presbyterians may be
guilty of, I fuppofe Mr. Rhind might have kept at Home, and re-
ierved His Ledure for High-Churcfj: Not that they are very nice
in their Pra^ice; for, 1 believe, the belt that can be faid of 'em as
to that is. That they are ( if I may ufe our Country Phrafe ) but
like Neighbour and other. But, if the Church of England Dmnes
themfelves may be believed, Mr. Biffet for Inftance ; The Height
ot their Principle makes them fo much Enemies to the Reft of Man-
kind, that neither Presbyterians nor even Low-Church can walk the
Streets
Chap. V. Pfesbyterlan Spirh. 515
Streets in Safty, but are every Moment ia Danger ol being juftlcd
into the Kennel by High-Church.
TAfttum Relligio fotuitfuadere Malorum 7
But it is not this or that Man's particular Teftimony we need de-
pend on. 'Tis plain their Principles o^//^^ them tofuchHoftility
againlt the reft of Mankind: For, were I of Mr K/;/Ws Faith, and
believed all the fame ill Things of the Presbyterians that he does, I
wou'd not only reckon it unlawfull to converfe with them, but I fliou'd
think my felf obliged in Confcience todeftroy them. If they are Schif-
maticks, Hereticks, and their Spirit diametrically oppofue to that of the
Gofpel^hc, What fhou'd Men do, but treat them as mad Dogs,knock
'em on the Head, and rid the World of Tuch Nuifances.
VII. Hecharges them with a Dijloyat^ Rebellious Spirit, p. 210. I
hope, every Man ought not to be believed a Rebel
who has been at any Time called one. I haveob- Not 2iDiJ!oyai
ferved before p. 29. that Mr Dodwell was proclaimed or Rebellious
aRebelby K.y^w^i, yet who, for all that, believes Spirit.
he was fuch ? Perhaps the Presbyterians will be found
as Innocent.
Mr Rhind founds his Charge both upon their Principles and Prai^
liices,
Firft^ upon their Principles, But, had he thought that any part of
his Bufinefsjl fuppofe he wou'd have found the Proof of this a very
hard Task. The Principles of a Church are to be gathered from her
fiubWck For mula^s. And I appeal to every Body who has read the
Weflminfter Confefsion of Faith, and the Thirty nine Articles of the
Church of England^ if the firfl is not as Loyal as the latter. But they
^vtprivate Authors not publuk Confeffionsihsit Mr Rhind was to build
on. And, for his Purpole, he names f for he cites nothing ) Buchan-
<»'s Treatife dejure Regni, Rutherford's Lex Rex, Naphthali and tho
Hind let loofe, ' Which hooks ^ fatth he p. 211, the Presbyterians
' have not to this Day branded with any publick Cenfure, tho'
* they have been often upbraided, and folemnly challenged to con-
[ demn, other wife to be counted Abettors of them. ThcAnfwcr,
R r . ^
^14 Defence of the Ghap. V.
I hope, will bi? pretty eafie. The Presbyterians love to walk by Ex-
ample, and to give Place to their Betters. Mr Rhind certainly knows,
that the Bifliops and other Clergy of the Church of Ei^gla»d have
publifh'dat leaft a Hundred Books and Pamphlets with the fame
Principles and Schemes of Government as are in Bucharjarj^ Rutherm
ford he. Let the Ctf;?i/^c/t//^/? once condemn thefe, and begin with
the Bifhop of Sarum^T>x Higden and Mv Hoadly \ and then pofFibly
thQ GefieralJjfemhIy may write after their Copy. 'Tis certain the
Presbyterians maintain no other Principles of Government than
what the Church of £»g/4»^ has pra6lifed, no other Principles than
thefe upon which She, with the Affiftance of her good Neighbours,
prefer ved the Proteftant Religion in 1688. I am not for prying into
the Power of Princes, remembering to have read fomewhere Fe-
riculi plenum eft deijs di/putare qui poj^unt amfutare, deijs fcribere qui
pofunt profcrtbere^ but I think the Principles of our Scots Epifcopalians
are beyond the Power of all Natural Underftanding to account for.
Claudius ?in^ NerOyV^ho reigned fucceffively in the Time of writing
the New Teftament, were both Ufurpers and Tyrants, had neither
Hereditary nor Parliamentary Right; yet both the Apoftles Peter.
and Paul enjoin'd Subjedtion to them, and commanded Prayers for
them. Her prefent Majefty has both the fulleft and cleareft Righc
any Prince poITibly can have. She has exercifed it in the moft ob*
liging Manner, particularly with Reipe£t to them. Now that,
notwiihftandingall this, they fhou'd have fo long retufed to pray
for Her, and that moftof'em fhou'ddofoftill; thislaffiim is un-
accountable in Point both of Duty and Gratitude. Nor have the
AQings of High Church in England been more accountable, as I
hope we fhall hear afterwards.
Secondly, He charges us with Diflpyal Yraliices, They were no fooft^ .
er hatched^ faith he p, 212, (han they rebelled. Sweet Popery/ What
a charming Thing art Thou ; when even ?roteftants, nay thofe that
will needs be the o/j/j ChrilHans among 'em, affirm thataRefor-
mation from Thee was Rebellion f But let us hear his Inftances of
their Rebellion ?
Fir sty He begins, where the Reformation began, viz. at C;^; Ma-
r/s Reign, * whofe Reputation, /^/V/' he, they blackned, whofe
* Authority and Government they refifted and reviled, whofe Per-
foa
Chap. V.^ Presbyterian Spirit 5 15
* fon they imprifoned. and whom they obliged to fly, In Hopcsto
* fave that Life which (he cruelly loft. 1 Iius He. Every liody
muft needs own that of all others the Epifcopal Writers arc the
nimbieft Difputants. When we difpute with them about tlic Go-
vernment of the Church in Q^ Marfs Days, by no means will
they allow that it was Presbyterian, No. Suferintenderrts were
the fame Thing with Bifbop ( k ). W^eli, be it fo : And Icr us
difpute a little about Loyalty in the Government of the State, How
came it that under an Epifcopacy, Q_ Mary was fo ill treated ?
Oh, now the Cafe alters, the whole Government was then in the
Hands of the Presbyterians, Rebellion was the very Egg out of
which they were hatch'd /
Quo teneam Fultus mutdntem Protea nodo ?
But let us fuppofe the Presbyterians had then the Government^
What did they? Why frft^ faith he, they blackned Her Reputation,
For Anfwer, I ask has Archbifhop Spotjivood whitened it? Does
not He tell the Story of Signior Davte much after the fame Way
with Buchanan ? Does He not tell of the horrid abufe the King
met with at Stirling, how He was neither admitted to be prefent
at the Baptifm of His Son, nor fuffered to come to the Feaft ?
How the for reign AmbafTadoursweredifcharged tofeeorlaluteHim,
and fuch of the Nobility as vouchafcd him a Vifit were frown'd
upon by the Court, and he at laft difmifTed with a Dofe of Poifon
in his Guts. Does he not exprefly tell that the King was Mur-
dered by Bothwell and the Queen's Domefticks? Does not all the
World know that Her Majefty afterwards married the Murderer,
and that too, upon a Divorce from the Lady Jean Gordon his wife
obtain'd in the moft Scandalous Manner ? Does not Spot/wood I
fay relate all thefe Things ? Was Spotfwood Presbyterian ?
Nor is Spotfwood alone in the Relation of 'em. For, not to
mention other Scots or Englijjj Hiftorians, Ruggerius Tritonius Ah-
bot oi Figneroly who was a Zealous Fapift, a hearty Friend toQ.
Mary, lived in the Time, was Secretary to Vincentius Laureus Car-
dinal de Monte Regalt, who was fent Nuncio from the Pope to the
Queen for aflifting Her with his Counfel in the Extirpation of Hc-
R r 2 refy.
£ k j See che Faadanjeotal Chaicerot T.ahytry, wiik manyoihcr Auilwn.
^i6 Defence of tht Chap, V;
refy,and was lying in Tarts waiting for Orders from the Queen to
come over into Scotland, at the Time when the King was murder-
ed, and kept an exa6; Correlpondence with the Roman Catholicks
there : This Author, I fay, thus every Way qualified for bearing
Witneis in this Cafe, exprefly relates * and that with the Per-
miffton of his Superior SyThu when the Nobility told Her Majefty,
that they had taken up Arms for bringing J^othwdl tapunifhment
for Murdering the King &.c, Her Majefty juftifiedB^/^>r^//, and told
them, He had done Nothing without her ConfenP. Did then the Pre-
sbyterians Forge any of thefe thmgs ?
But 2dlyy faith Mr Rhind^ they reftfled and reviM Her Authority
and Government yt\\2it is to fay, the v wou'd not allow Her toreftorc
Popery, nor wou'd they commit tne Young Prince to theCuftody
of i^o/Z'w^/f who had murder'd His Father, Were not thefe very
unpardonable Faults ?.
Yet further ^^/y, Q. Elizabeth took off her head ; andnodouBt
ihe, and her Council that advifed Her to it, were ftaunch Presby-
terians. So much for Q: Mary's Reign;
Secoftdlj, In K.James VPs Reign. M): Rhind owns ( which
is very much from him ) that in his Days they did not break out
jnto^open Rebellion^. Why then^, they cannot be (b rebellioufly dif-
pofed as He wou'd reprefenr them •• For if they had, it is not
quite improbable but they might liave made their own Terms of
Peace; But, fays Mr Rhind, xhQy Occafion'*d Vexations and.DiJlur'^
bances to Him ;th2it isto&y, they protefted Him in hisGradle, fet
the Crown on hi& head, fought for him^ and kept the Country ia
greater Peace, when he went to fetch home his Qaeeo, than it had
been known to be in for many Years before ; which hehimfclf ao-
knowledged, and gave publick Thanks to God for. 'Tis true,
they grudged the receiving Bi/bops and the five Articles of Perth^^
which he wou'd needs prels upon us in Order to a Conformity
with England. But I cannot think either England or we or the Roya*!
Family cou'd have bewi muchLofers, tho'^he had never fallen int©
thatFolitick.. Before;
*:'Interrogau quanam de caufi armaci illtK: acfcflinTenr, nou alia, refpondine f'eruntur, nifi, ut atro-
■eem Injuriana a Boiuellio ddzm, ac crudelem 6c indignam Regis necem, vimque ipfimet Reginx illarana
Ytndicateut. Ar. Regina noxim Bodnelli purgarc : Nihil non ipfa afleutieute commiffum. S^e Vita
Kittceutq Luu/ei S. R. E. Cardinalis Montis Kcgalis^ Rti^edo T/itonio Pinawli Abbatc Auftore. ImgjsjjC,
tantttifi +:• apud Ha;i»di!5 Jfhttnnn Rojfij. C I o . I o 1 C 6»peijoru«. FetmiflTH. P. i^—- 3 1. ,
Chap. V < Presbyterian Spirit. 5 1 7
Before I proceed to the next Reign, I muft beg Leave for a fhort
Digreffion, which, I hope, the Reader will the more eafily cxcufe,
that it is not fo much from the Subject as from the Autlior; ^nd
is intended to do Juftice to the Memory of the Dead» who are uot
ifl Capacity to redrefs themfelvcs. The Matter is this.
v:r.,
The Right Honourable the Earl of Cromerty, very latelv
in May laft 171 3. Publifh'd a Book bearing this Title, AN H\-
STORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CONSPIR...
GIES BY THE EARLS OF GOIVRT, A N Vj
ROBERT LOGAN OF RESTALRIG, AGAINST
K. JAMES VL Therein ( Pr^/tc^ p. V 1 1 1. ) His Lordfhip
writes thus
* As to Truth in my Prefent Subjed, the Malicious Deflgners,a-
*' gainft the Royal Family in Scotland^ did at firlt invent, and then
*■ foment, a mod improbable FaKhood, making it their Biifinefs ro
*• fuggeft, that Gomie and His Brother did never Confpire again ft
' the King; But that the King did Murder them both. This was
* invented and clandeftinely propagated by Bruee^ RoUocky Dury^.
^ ,Melv'iL and other Presbyterian Mioifters. Thus His Lordfhip.
'Tis hugely afHiding to the Freshyterians to find their Fore-
fathers reprefented, by a Perfon of His Lordfhip's Figure, under
the Odious Charader of MALICIOUS DESIGNERS AGAINST
THE ROYAL FAMILY. What is ufually advanced againft
'em by theCommen Herd of Epifcopal Writers they can fccurcly
contemn: For, why fhou'd that give them any Concern, which
their Enemies Blurt out without any Carel But fuch a Charge
from His Lordfhip cuts 'em to the Heart, and wou'd leave 'em
Inconfolable, were it not that fas kind Providence wou'd have it ;
tliey find His Lordfliip's much weightier Aftair^have hurried Him
into fome Miftakes; which, they make no Doubt, He will redifie
upon Advertifement; which I now humbly crave Leave to give.
In the. Firfi Place, As for Mr. Rollock That He did nejther
Invent nor claodeftinely Propagate iuch a Story, as His Lordfliip
allcdges, 'tis certain, By this Token, that Mr. Rollock was Dead,,
5i8 Defence of the Ghao V;
and Rotten too, before the Con/piracy. Every one knows that
Gowrfs Coni'pmcy fell out Juguft f^^th i6co. But Mr. Ro/Iock died
in the Moneth oi February 1598. Thus Clerk relates in His Life,
Thus Melchior Adams relates in his Lives of Forreign Divihes. Thus
the Manufcript Cdderwood in the Univerfity Library in Glajgorv re-
lates. Nay thus Spotfwood xQ\ziQs in his Hiflory p. 454. And
thus, I prefume, every Body, elfe relates, that writesof Mr. Roiiock.
For preventing Miftakes I muft advertife the Reader, that, as
Spot fmod informs us p. 4') 6, the Year among us ufed to begin at
25 March, till a Publick Ordinance was made, appointing that the
Beginning of the Year 1600, and fo on thenceforward, ihou'd be
reckon'd from thefirft of 'January as now.^ 'Tisthen no ObjeQion
againft what I have advanced, tho' one find Mr. Rollock writing
Books, or fpoken of in Hiftory as living, in "January or February
1599. The different Ways of Computation quite remove that Diffi-
culty. Ani tho' Hiftorians differ about the Day of the Moneth
on which He died; Spot/mod making it the laB Day of February,
whereas all the reft, whom I havefeen, make it the eighth Day of
that Moneth: Yet, that is not of any Import in this Cafe: For,
even by the loweft Account, He was Dead at k^iG: feve»tee» Moneths
before the Co^fpiracy ; and therefore cou'd not, without a Miracle,
Invent or Propagate falfe Stories concerning it.
2dly, His LordiSip is in the like Miftake concerning Mr. Dury, For
He died, as Spotfmod alfo relates p. 457, upon the lali Day of
February 1600, that is to fay, five Moneths and five Days before
the Confpiracy^ and fo could not be Guilty.
Thefe Obferves, concerning Rollock and Dury, the Publick owes,
not to me ; but, to that Worthy Perfon and my very good Friend
Mr. Matthew Crawfurd Minifter at Inchenan in the Shire of Renfrew ;
who, in an accidental Converfation, firft gave Me Notice of His
Lordfhip's Book, and that He had obferved the faid Miftakes in it.
Which Obferves, upon Examination, I found to be Juft.
His Lordfhip is not only out as to His reckoning, but is miftaken
alfo in the CharaQers of the Men ; For, they were fo far frbm be-
ing DESIGNERS AGAINST THE ROYAL FAMILY; that,
as Spotfrvood relates in the Places above cited, they fpent their laft
^ Breath,
Ghap. V.' Presbyterian Sprit. 5 1 9
Breath, Roliock, In exhorting His Brethren in the Miniftry to carry
dutifully towards the King ; and Dury, in advifing thcra to com-
ply with His Majefty's Defigns for reftoring FreUcj,
I don't in the Isalt incline to aggravate thefe his Lordfliips Miftakcs.
So much the lefs, that I find 'tis ufual with great Men, when writing
2ig^\n^i\\Q Presbyterians^ to fall into the like. The famous Monfieur
VartlUs very gravely tells it as a Singularity ^ concerning Buchanan,
that, After having declared himfeif againji his Sov^aign Ladj^Jo far as
to go into England to depofe againH Her in the Criminal Procefs then de-
pending^ he continued to perjecute her after fjje was beheaded. This, faith
he, is a Crime which they^ who are mofi partial in Favour ^/Buchanan,
mufi own he was guilty of. And yet after all this, 'cis certain, that Bu»
chanan was notguilty ofthat Crime, forthis good Reafon, that he di-
ed fome three or four Years before the Queen was beheaded. But
there is a fhort and obvious Apology to be made for fuch Miftakes in
Varillas or his Lordfliip, Aquila non capiat Mufcas. To go on.
^dly^ As to Mr Melvil. 'Tis true he was on Life at that Time, yet I
cannot find in any Hiftory that he was guilty of Inventing,Fomenting,
or Propagating fuch a Story, or that he made any the leaft Noife a-
bout that Matter. His Lordlhip therefore wou'd oblige his Country,
if he wou'd vouchafe to give his Authors.
4?^/y, As to Mx Bruce, Tis true, he refufed to give publick
Thanks for the King's Deliverance from that Coofpiracy, declaring,
^sSpotfvOod p. 461 relates, thdit he wou^d reverence His Majesly's Reports
of that Accidtm^ but could not fay he wasperfwaded of the Truth of it :
For which he was banifli'd the King's Dominions, and went into
France, But this is a very different Thing from what his Lordlhip
charges him wirh. For, tofuggeft, that Gowry and his Brother did never
'confpire again [i the KJf^g? ^^'^ that the l^ing did murder them both, had
beenaCr/w^; becaul'e it was not poflible, certainly to know that i
and yet much lefs, to prove fuch a Suggefiion. But to declare, that
he could not fay that he wasperfwaded of the Truth of the Cor/piracy, which
is all that the Hiftorians of that Time charge him with, was,.at the
worf*; buta Wsakmfs ; it not being in a Man's Fower to believe a Sto-
PicUce to the y Toca. ol tlie H-Jlvirc de L' Hua^t.
'526 Defence of the Cbp. /^.
ry,butaccorcIingtotheTmpre(rion w hich the Grounds of it,and Credi-
bility of its Circumftances, make upon his Mind. And no one knows
better than his Lord fhip, that there are feveral Circumftances, in the
Story ohheCoftf piracy, which are not fo perfectly clear, but that they
require Time to believe 'em : Tho' indeed, I think his Majefty's Te-
ftimony,with the Prefumption that the Earl and his Brother were out
of their Wits, as his Majefty, before the Attempt, fufpefted the Earl's
Brother to be, is fufficient to determine the Matter. For what may
not mad Men do ? However it was, it does not appear that Mr Brace
wasguilty of what his Lordlhip charges him with ; there being a
very great Odds betwixt Contradi^ing a Report, and being reve-
rently filent about it.
yh/j, Ksioi other Preshyter tan MiniHers whom his Lordfhip inde-
finitly involves in the fame Guilt. The Accufation can be of no Weight
till his Lordfhip is pleafed to name them. 'Tis true the Miniftersof
Edi/iburgh, viz,, Mrs. Walter Balcanqual^ William Watfon^ 'James
Balfour^ and John Hall^ demurr'd at firft to give Thanks for
the King's Deliverance, upon this Excufe, as Spot/wood ip. 461. in-
forms us, that, they were not acquainted with the ParticularSy nor how
tho/e Things had fall'' n out. But howfoon they were informed of the
Particulars of the Confpiracy, they comply ed. Now, implicite Faith
having been cried down, everCnce the Reformation, it feems hard
to blame fucha Condud: And 'tis no lefs hard to blame Presbyteriari
Minilters for a Fault which was common to fo many others at that
Time; SpotfwoodtQ^ing us that many doubted that there had been any
Juch Con/piracy, This may be fufficient for Vindication of the Presbyteri'
M Minifiers againft his Lordfhip's Charge. I crave Leave only to add
two Remarks more on his Lordihips Book.
L His Lordfhip p. 30, ji. has advanced a Piece of Hiftory in
thefe Words. * Upon the Information of Henderfon^ and other
'^ WitnefTes, Cranjlon and Craigengelt were pannell'd before the
* Jufliciary at St, Johnftoun ; and upon clear Teftimonies, and on
* their own ConfefTion at the Bar ( which they alfo adhered to
* on the Scaffold ) they were both executed ; Only alledging that
* they did not know of the Defign to Murder the King; but that
\ they intended to force the King to make great Reparations for
th&
Chap. V. Presbyterian SfHt. 52 1
< the late Earl of Cowrie's Death ; and that this Earl of Gomy was
' to be made a great Man. Thus his Lordfhip.
But His Lordfhip has not thought fit to Document this; and Spotf.
wood who lived in the Time has flatly contradiaed it in thtfc Words
p. 459 ' Another of Gonrie's Servants furnamcd Craroe;,odt wiis
* fome two days after apprehended, and both he and M. TLo,
* Cr^/;y?fl« executed at Perth ; tho' at their dyin^ they declared that
'they knew NOTHING of the Earl's purpofe, and h^d OXLY
* followed him as being their Mafter unto that Room, where it they
< had known the King to have been, they wou'd have ftood for him
* againlt their Marter and all others. Thus Spot Jwcod. Idont for
all this fay, that the Earl of Cromerty is wrong: But if he is not,
certainly the Archbifhop is.
II. His Lordfliip hasalfo given us in his Book a larpeand par-
ticular Account ol the i^roajs and Trial of Robtrt Lo^an of Re.
ftalrig. No one will fufpedHis Lordfhip'sExadnefsin the Extrafls
of the Documents of that Procefs which He has produced. But
tho' His Lord (hip's Faithfullnefs is beyond Queftion,>et the Truth
of the (lory it felf is nor. I fhill give my Reafon why I fay fo.
Spotfwood was at that Time at Man's Age, was ArchbiOiop of
Gla/^oiv, was one of His Vlajelly's Privy-Council, was upon the
Scaffold when Sprot the Notary, from whom that whole Procefs
flow'd, was hang'd, and figns the Account oi Sprat'' s Behaviour on
the Sc<5fFold, which we have p. 1 1 5 of His LordHiip's Book : Spotp~
wood^ I fay, who was thus every way qualified to give Judgment
upon and a true Narration of this Procefs ; Yet, in hi^ Hiltory,
tells the Itory in fuch a Manner, as wou'd tempt any Body Hirewd-
ly to fufpect, that the whole Bufinefs was a Fidiion. For thus
His Words are p. 509.
* Whether or not I fhould mention the Arraignment and Execu-
* tion of George Sprot Norary in Eymouth, who futTcred at tdin-
^ burih in the Augujt preceedmg, I am doubtful!; his ConfcfTion,
' though voluntary and Conliant carrying SMALL PP.013 ABI-
* LITY. This Man had deponed, that He knew Robert Lo^.7» of
' Reflalrig^ who Was dead two years bclore, to have been privy
* to Goivru's Confpiracy, and that he under Hood fo much by a
* Letter tliac fell in hii hand wittwn by ReliAlng toGomtey bearing
S f that
3:22 Defence of the Cbap^ V;
' that he would take part with Him in the Revenge of his FatheiV
" Death, and that his beft Courie ihou'd be to biing the King by
' Sea to Fafcafie, where He mi.dit be iaiely kspt, till advetifement
* came from thofe with whom the Earl kept Intelligence. It feem-
' edaVERY FICTION, and to be a MEER INVENTION of
' the Man's own Brain ; for neither did he fhew the Letter, nor
* cou'd ANY WISE MAN think that G^iwj, who went about
* that Treafon fo feGfedy, . would have communicated the Matter
' with fuch a Man as this Rejhirig \v2iS known to be. Thus
far His Grace, who, as we are told in his Life, hAdnot only the Vfs
Gfailihe Regifhrs both of Church And State in Scot Und, but ofallLet^
ters- cf State that cou*d any way concern the V/ork he was about. And,
yet his account not only differs from his Lordfliip's, but plainly con-
tradiQsic- 'Tis certain then there muft be a Mifrake fomewhere,
which I muft leave to the Reader to judge upon as he lifts.
I do not defign by thefe two R^emarks to derogate in the leaft
from the Truth oUhQ Con/ptracj.. For, in the Light wherein it
now ftands, I cannot conceive why any man fhou'd fufpeQ it.
The Earl of Goivry ufed the BUck Art^ wore Magicall Spells in his
Girdle, which His Lordfliip himfelf was once Mafter of, and has
very well proved in his Letter to his Printer prefix'd to his Book.
What Crime was not fuch a Perfon capable of ? His Brother's
whole .Condu£l in the Managment ofthe Confpiracy (peaks him
Frantick. For /y?, That he fhouM have fliut up Hendsrfo^ m the
Chamber in order to perpetrate the Murder, and yet not have told
him before hand that this was the Defign. . 2^/7, That after hav-
ing held the Whinger to the King's Breaft, he (hou'd have falPn
a parlying with him, and gone down ftairs to confult with the
Earl his Brother whether he ItouM murder Him or nor. ^dly^
That he fhou'd have taken the King's Fromife not to open tlie
Window or cry out till he fliou'd return, ^thly. That when hs
had return'd and fworn BT GOD there is no Remedy, you mt^ji die',
he fijDu'd have eflay'd to tye the King's Hands with a Gart^r^
when, 'tis probable, he might have more eafily difpatch'd Him
without that Ceremony. Cou'd there be greater Symptoms of a
Man Diftemper'd in his Wits than theie and a great many other
Qrcumftancss. ih&t, might be added? Why then fhou'd we any
longer
•Chap, v.- Presbyterian Sfirit. ^2'^'
longer doubt whether a Man in Comtnii and his Brother Noa
Compos wou'd attempt the greateft Villany ?
But then, both the Earl and his Brother had always, till-nhat
very Day, pafs'd under the Character of Wife, Sober and Virtu-
ous Gentlemen, two Touths of great Hope^ lays Spotfmod^ at whojc
Hands no Man coWd have expelled juch an Attempt, Was it any
Wonder then if Mr. Evuce^ and the other Minifters of Edinburgh
who demurr'd a little, cou'd not at fir ft pafli be pcrfwadcd, iliat
• they had all of a I'udden become, the One of 'em a Devil, t'other
DiftraQed? Tis plain there was a Difficulty here: And this is
more than enough to vindicate the Yresb^tertan Minifters. ^od
erat Faciendum,
I go on with Mr. Rhind, and proceed to confider His Charge
of Rebellion,
Thirdly^ In K. Charles Ps Time, I believe there is no wife Man
will undertake to juftify all that was done on either Side during thofe
Troubles. The only Queftion is, who were the firft Authors of
them, and who gave the greateft caufe of them ?
Was it the Scots Fresbyterians ? My Lord Holiish^% affolzled 'em.
*• 'Twas propofed, Jaiih he (/) that our Brethren of ^^o//4«^ might
'^ be called in, who were known to be a wife People, Lovers of
* Order, firm to the Monarchy : Who had twice before gone through
* the Misfortune of taking up Arms, and uifely had laid them
' down again; ftill contenting themfelves with that which was ne-
* cejjary for their Security, avoiding Extremities. Their Wifdom
' and xVIoderation, as was prefumed, might then have delivered
* us from that Precipice of Mifery and Confufion, into which our
' Charioteers were hurrying us amain. Butthefe Men would none
* of it at that Time. Thus his Lordfhip.
Were not the 6Vo/i Prelates thQ Hrft Authors of thofc Troubles ?
Did nut they raife the Fire? Yes. Gilbert ii«r;-;f/ has expreliy loaded
them with it (w). 'Tis true, that Perfon has made a vigorious Appear-
ance thefe trventy or thirty Years bygone againft Foperjf,2in\\ in behalf
S f 2 oi
£ 1 j Memoirs p. ii. [ 'i^ J Memoiis ol ihc Houlc vl H-jw./fw ?• '$• 5--
524 ' Defence of the ChapJ^,
oUhQPfoteflant Intereft, which is a Fault never tf} be foraiven, in
this WoHdor in the next, if feme Mens '"'oom hold.- AsvH, on that
Score, any T«ftimony he cou'd give ^oji\ fij^ce he was h.fhopol6'4-
ramcQu^di beef no Weight. But thisTellimor.y he ^^ave when he was
plain GiikrtBurmt.^nd was asthrough paJd in the Principlesof P/?/-
fiveOhedi'Kce and No^-refis^U/^ce 'istvf^v 'Ar Dodwtll was, or Mr Lrjly \s.
Plainly he tells, That the SVofi Bifliops, by rcfiettingoruhe Rf^formerf^
commending the Ferfons, and mollifying the Opinions of P^/^if/i, de-
fending the /4rw/>«« Tenets, advancing a Liturgy without Law,
provoking the Nobility by engrofling the King s Favour, crying
down the.Morality of the Sabbath and prophaneing it by their PradU-
ces, makiog.themfelvesunfupportable to the Miniftry by J^^' mom a<^l
Factions and encroaching upon their Jurisdictions, by relinrjnifhmg ,
their Dioceffts and medling in all fecular Affairs, and by adviling the
King to introduce Innovations into the Church without Confentof
the Clergy. By thefe and fuch like Things, faith he, the Scots Pre-
lates ^^i/f<^//;^/f^V^ in theNation which was not foeafrlyexiinguifhed. .
Is there any other Account to be brought from jE^/g/^^^/^ ? No.
Thofe of the greateft Charaderand mod unfhaken Loyalty have
told the Story as to that Kingdonoi the very fame Way. Lfhillpio-
ducetwoofthem for the Purpofe. The firft is the Lord Falka^d'in
his Speech before cited before the Houfe of Commons, than whith a
more e^iacl Piece of Eloquence with fuch rigid Truth even An-
cient Rome Hcrfelf cannot boaft of. * Mr. Speaker, fail h He, He
* is a great ftranger in Ifrael who knows not that this Kingdom
' hath long laboured under many and great Oppreffions both in
* Religion and Liberty. And His Acquaintance here is not grear,
* or his Ingenuity jefs, whodoih not both know and acknowledge
* that a gredi if not a Primipal Caufe of both thefe have been
' fomc Bsjhops. and their Adherents.— -The Reader may perufe the
Red at His Leifure. To Him let us add JMy Lord Claremo^, an a-
vowed Enemy to the PrcsbyierUnSy an Author who hardly ever
allows Himfelf to fpeak one good Word of any 5^(3/i Man ; and
who, even when He has the brighteft Charat^ers of our Nation
a drawing, yet lays on the Shadow ing,fo thick,, that the Piece ap-
pears but a very indifferent one: Even this Noble Hirtorian, Ifay,
hiis exprefly charged- the Troublea of thofe Times- uppn the unac-
CQuntabk.
CKap, V. Presbyterian 5pfm, 325
countable and fiery Meafures of the Court and High Church Party.
' No lefs urjuj}: Pro)c6>s of all Kinds, fatth He (»), many ridtcu-
*■ hu^^ many Sccindalous, all very grievous were fet on Foot. The
*' Council-Chamber and Star-Chamber held for Honourable that
* which pleafed, and for jult that which profited; and being ihe
^ fame Perfons in fevevdl Rooms grew both Couitsot Law to du-
' termine Right, and Courts of Revenue to bring in Money to the
* Treafury. Tlie Council-Table by Proclamation enjoining to the
' ' Peoplewhat was not injoined by the La w,and prohibiting wliat was
''not prohibited; and the Star Chamber cenfuring the lireach of
* thofe Proclamations by. very large Fines and Impnfonment. And
p. 223. That ' there were very few Perfons of Qtiality who had
* not fuffcred or been peiplexed by the Weight and Fear of ihcfe
* Judgments and Cenfures ; and that no Man cou'd Hope to
* be longer fee from the Inquifition of that Court than he r'efolv-
* ed to {iibm\tioe.\iraorci/»ary Courfes. So much for the Court.
Was Hi^h Church more Innocent? No, on the contrary She
was the great Spring of all. The fame Lord CLirerjdon owns ( o)
That 'when L.i^/^ was mads Archbilliop f which was in 1633)
* ^it was a Time- of great- Eafe and I ranquility ; The King had
' mideHimfelf Superior to all th)ie DifficuUies Hehad to contend
'with, and was now reverenced by all [lis Neighbours; the ge-
* neral Temper and Humour of the Kingdom little inclined to the
^-PapiH and lefs to the Fz/r/V^;/. — The Church was not repined
* at, nor the leatl Inclmation lliewn to alter the Government or Dil-
' ciphne thereof, or to Change the Dodrme; nor was there at that
' Time any confiderable Number of Perlo;;s of any valuable Con-
* ditiou throughout the Kingdom who did wifh either.
* '^'Arici the Caufe of fo prodigious a Change in fofhv Ttars
' ^afur was too vifible jrorn the Effects, l^he Archbifliop's
* ■ Heart was fet upon the Advancement of the Church &c. —He ne-
* ver abated any Thing of His Severity and Rigour towards Men
* of all Conditions or in the Shavpnefsof His Langu.^ge and Lx-
J *preflions.— And that Heemertain'd too much Prejudice to fjme
Ptrfons
^ N, B.
t n J ii'it. RcbeJ], B. X. p. J^. }j. [ o J \. bi Su,>r4 p. 6i. 71.
^26 Defence of the Chap. ^.
' Perfons as if they were Enemies to the Difcipline of the Church,
rbecaufe they concurred with Calvin in feme Do£^rinaI Points,
* when they abhorred His Difcipline, and reverenced theGovern-
* ment of the Church, and prayed for its Peace with as much
* Zeal and Fervency as any in the Kingdom, as they made mani-
' feft in their Lives and in their Sufferings with it and for it. Thus
He, and a great deal more to the fame Purpofe, for which any
Body may confult the Hiftory it felf. Say now. Good Reader, who
were the firft and greateft Caufes of the Troubles in K. Charles
FsTime?
But fays Mr. Rhind^ They hetrayed Him ifito the hands of his E-
fjemies^ when He had entru[led them with His /acred Verjon, Let us
hear my Lord Holies upon this p. 68. * The Wifdom of the Scotijb
* Nation forefaw the Inconveniences which mult have neceffarly
^ followed had they been poffitive at that Time, how they had play-
* ed ihsir Enemies Game to their own Ruin, and even Ruin to His
* Majefty. Therefore they made for him the bsft Conditions they
*" could, that is for the Japy and Honour of His Perfon, and to avoid
* greater mif 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11